Thread: Immigration

LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 03:09 PM

Scratchin the head thinkin bout this one.I've been hearin all this racial profiling stuff etc etc,about asking folks for their visa,green card,immigration papers etc.What is the big deal if someone is pulled over in a traffic violation or detained in breaking the law somehow & asked for their drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration in a traffic violation?Or in another way of breaking the law asked for their idenification.And if they can't or won't produce these documents.And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.
So many are making such a big deal outta this thing.You,myself & many other Americans have to show & prove our idenity time & time again.When we get pulled over on the highway,at the Dr's office,the bank & on the list goes.So what makes it so damm difficult about if a person is involved in breaking the law somehow.Doesn't matter if their mexican,french,german,native american or John Smith from Macon,Ga.And they can't prove who the hell they are & where their from.Seems like thats a no brainer.Yet Obama throws this jive line out there about a family goin to get ice cream,& being detained & harrassed for their papers by the police.I tell ya what!Any of ya'll disagree with me,then from here on out when ya go somewhere in your car etc,LEAVE YOUR ID & WALLET AT HOME.Just stuff some cash in your pocket & go about your merrily way.Then when ya get pulled over by a cop with no license,proof of insurance or registration,PLEASE come back here & post what went down.


yeah,yeah,yeah!I know all about the whipping post forum.Thing is,i didn't wanna post this in the WP.


mbtogo4 - 8/5/2010 at 03:25 PM

BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL FUTURE DEMOCRATIC VOTES ...THAT SIMPLE


Peachypetewi - 8/5/2010 at 03:41 PM

I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.


goldtop - 8/5/2010 at 03:44 PM

Geez Luke...I have people in my family that don't speak English and they are citizens. Where should they be deported to?

Not everybody came over on the Mayflower...some of us have only been in the US for a few years. They don't need to speak English because they live within the community of people they immigrated with and the shop and socialize within that community


skyponydogboy - 8/5/2010 at 03:59 PM

Immigrants from all nations have always been welcome in the USA. It's the
one's that are ILLEGAL that pose the problem. What's so hard to understand?
This racial profiling is just a bunch of crap from the left. I suggest to all to read the bills, both State (AZ) and Federal and see for yourself.
It is about votes as far as obama is concerned. Regardless of hoe much it costs the states/taxpayers. That in itself is a sad, anti-American position to take. The immigrants I come into contact with on a daily basis are against illegals as much as I am. Thsi nation will not stand with this invasion.


dougrhon - 8/5/2010 at 04:13 PM

quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.


I think a lot were.


Fujirich - 8/5/2010 at 04:26 PM

quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.
Because most believed the govt would do what it promised back then in regard to this act - that both amnesty would be granted AND the border would be secured to stop this problem from re-occurring.

The first part happened. We all know what happened with the second.

Why trust the same govt on the same issue again? We're still waiting, decades later, for the borders to be secured.


er1016 - 8/5/2010 at 06:12 PM

As for the Arizona law I think it is a reasonable effort but it came along at the wrong time. I too have read both the Arizona and Federal law and as best I can tell the only difference between the two is the provision that if a person is involved in a criminal activity they can be asked for verification of citizenship. In addition, we have the Justice department saying that they are not going to prosecute any city/state that provides a safe haven for illegals. Yet they are taking a state to court for wanting to uphold the very law that makes safe havens illegal...

But when you have the midterm elections coming, the House, Senate and the President under fire why would you expect this to not turn into a political football. Hence, just another day in American politics.

Luke, two weeks ago my family and I were headed home from a trip to Saint Simons. It was 11:00pm and we were on a 4 lane highway in south Ga. We topped the hill and there were cars lined up in both the east and west bound lanes, police cars everywhere.
When it was our turn to go through the road block, I was asked to show my drivers license and proof of ins. I informed the officer that I did not have my license; I had inadvertently left them at our home in Saint Simmons and I was asked to pull over to the side of the road and a officer came over to my car.

I told the second officer the same thing that I had the first officer. He asked me my name and if I knew what my license number was and I gave him the information he requested. He called it in and in a matter of 10 seconds the dispatcher on the other end of the radio confirms my name, address and that I had no warrants or outstanding traffic violations. I was told that I was free to go and to make sure I find my license and to keep them on me.

I at no time felt that anything unreasonable was being asked of me.


sixty8 - 8/5/2010 at 06:58 PM

quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.


Me neither. Even now the Republicans try to never even bring up the whole amnesty subject when talking about Reagan's legacy because it is indefensible. They are too busy trying to make him sound like some perfect Godly president which he wasn't. I don't think he was bad but not as great as portrayed. IMO his administration and their granting of amnesty to illegals is what has led us to the uncontrollable illegal immigrant problem we have now!!! I am not for amnesty for illegals at all!

[Edited on 8/5/2010 by sixty8]


jim - 8/5/2010 at 07:09 PM

quote:
They don't need to speak English because they live within the community of people they immigrated with and the shop and socialize within that community


Do they also use their own services, like schools, prisons and hospitals? Sorry for being a wise ass, but that is also an issue here.

I also donít think it helps them to not learn English. I assume most aliens come here because they want a better life, not because they want to kidnap, commit crimes, etc. They want to work hard and advance their lives. The English language plays an important role in all aspects of society, and therefore learning it would greatly give advantage to the person concerned.


Fujirich - 8/5/2010 at 07:23 PM

quote:
quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.
Me neither. Even now the Republicans try to never even bring up the whole amnesty subject when talking about Reagan's legacy because it is indefensible. They are too busy trying to make him sound like some perfect Godly president which he wasn't. I don't think he was bad but not as great as portrayed. IMO his administration and their granting of amnesty to illegals is what has led us to the uncontrollable illegal immigrant problem we have now!!! I am not for amnesty for illegals at all!
Hold on a second. Reagan signed a bill to both grant amnesty and secure the borders (Simpson-Mazzoli Act) on Nov. 6, 1986, with just a little more than two years left in his Presidency.

Securing the borders is not something you just snap your fingers and do. It takes years of management, funding, and follow-up. I'm not trying to make Reagan out any better than he was. But at the same time, let's look at the issue in proper context.

The follow-up for this law mostly falls under the purview of Congress. Who was in charge of Congress for all those years?

[Edited on 8/5/2010 by Fujirich]


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 07:28 PM

quote:
quote:
They don't need to speak English because they live within the community of people they immigrated with and the shop and socialize within that community


Do they also use their own services, like schools, prisons and hospitals? Sorry for being a wise ass, but that is also an issue here.

I also donít think it helps them to not learn English. I assume most aliens come here because they want a better life, not because they want to kidnap, commit crimes, etc. They want to work hard and advance their lives. The English language plays an important role in all aspects of society, and therefore learning it would greatly give advantage to the person concerned.



You don't have to learn English if you know Spanish. The free market has enabled that.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 07:29 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.
Me neither. Even now the Republicans try to never even bring up the whole amnesty subject when talking about Reagan's legacy because it is indefensible. They are too busy trying to make him sound like some perfect Godly president which he wasn't. I don't think he was bad but not as great as portrayed. IMO his administration and their granting of amnesty to illegals is what has led us to the uncontrollable illegal immigrant problem we have now!!! I am not for amnesty for illegals at all!
Hold on a second. Reagan signed a bill to both grant amnesty and secure the borders (Simpson-Mazzoli Act) on Nov. 6, 1986, with just a little more than two years left in his Presidency.

Securing the borders is not something you just snap your fingers and do. It takes years of management, funding, and follow-up. I'm not trying to make Reagan out any better than he was. But at the same time, let's look at the issue in proper context.

The follow-up for this law mostly falls under the purview of Congress. Who was in charge of Congress for all those years?

[Edited on 8/5/2010 by Fujirich]


Democrats until 1994, then GOP from '94 to 2006. Effin worthless Democrats.


er1016 - 8/5/2010 at 07:30 PM

It doesn't matter who is in charge of maintaining the law if those laws are being held back from being enforced by political agenda.



Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 07:30 PM

quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 07:31 PM

quote:
It doesn't matter who is in charge of maintaining the law if those laws are being held back from being enforced by political agenda.





Or lack of resources. Could've spent all those trillions spent in Iraq, say...here?


spacemonkey - 8/5/2010 at 07:38 PM

Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.





dougrhon - 8/5/2010 at 07:54 PM

quote:
quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.


Me neither. Even now the Republicans try to never even bring up the whole amnesty subject when talking about Reagan's legacy because it is indefensible. They are too busy trying to make him sound like some perfect Godly president which he wasn't. I don't think he was bad but not as great as portrayed. IMO his administration and their granting of amnesty to illegals is what has led us to the uncontrollable illegal immigrant problem we have now!!! I am not for amnesty for illegals at all!

[Edited on 8/5/2010 by sixty8]


Conservative true believers had plenty of problems with Reagan at the time. True believers always do because they don't operate in the real world.


dougrhon - 8/5/2010 at 07:56 PM

quote:
quote:
They don't need to speak English because they live within the community of people they immigrated with and the shop and socialize within that community


Do they also use their own services, like schools, prisons and hospitals? Sorry for being a wise ass, but that is also an issue here.

I also donít think it helps them to not learn English. I assume most aliens come here because they want a better life, not because they want to kidnap, commit crimes, etc. They want to work hard and advance their lives. The English language plays an important role in all aspects of society, and therefore learning it would greatly give advantage to the person concerned.



I think a working ability to converse in English should be a requirement of American citizenship. There is no greater barrier to assimilation than the failure to speak a common language. My grandparents came here speaking not a word of English. The learned to speak it fluently in a short time. Until the day they died they had thick accents but they spoke and read the language fluently.


dougrhon - 8/5/2010 at 07:57 PM

quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


I think it should. So do a lot of other people. And we should not be dismissed as xenophobes. There are sound sociological reasons for supporting a common and official language.


BIGV - 8/5/2010 at 08:03 PM

quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.


"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


spacemonkey - 8/5/2010 at 08:06 PM

quote:
quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.






"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


It is not a matter of political correctness, It is a matter of the constitution.

the "They" being protected are the legal immigrants and Hispanics.



[Edited on 8/5/2010 by spacemonkey]


goldtop - 8/5/2010 at 08:06 PM

If you come from any latin country or european country you don't need to speak english to get around. So the elderly that come first don't usually learn english except hello goodbye....and Money...Money speaks. They have people in their family do the talking for them then translate. Kids talk to the doctors, lawyers, bankers...etc

My wife is from Portugal. Her parents speak some english but when it come to really describing complex ideas in detail they speak to my wife in Portugese and she translate to english for who ever they need to communicate with. The same thing we did for my grandparents and elderly uncles and aunts from Italy

Learning a Bus sytem just takes learning numbers and spelling of street names. You don't need to know how to pronouce the name of a street if you know how to spell it. Since they use the same type of letters we use in english its not that hard.


er1016 - 8/5/2010 at 08:11 PM

quote:
quote:
It doesn't matter who is in charge of maintaining the law if those laws are being held back from being enforced by political agenda.





Or lack of resources. Could've spent all those trillions spent in Iraq, say...here?


If not, maybe even some of the stimulus money would have been appropriate; would have produced jobs both long and short term as well as address the border issue.


jim - 8/5/2010 at 08:16 PM

quote:
It is a form of racial profiling.


You continue to dismiss the "lawful contact" part of the law. A law has already been broken.


SquatchTexas - 8/5/2010 at 08:17 PM

quote:
Scratchin the head thinkin bout this one.I've been hearin all this racial profiling stuff etc etc,about asking folks for their visa,green card,immigration papers etc.What is the big deal if someone is pulled over in a traffic violation or detained in breaking the law somehow & asked for their drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration in a traffic violation?


Well first and foremost is that states do not have the legal authority under the Constitution to enforce immigration laws.

quote:
Or in another way of breaking the law asked for their idenification.And if they can't or won't produce these documents.And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.


Wow. Deportation for having a 'forgein' (sic) accent or cant speak english? Ive read enough of your posts to determine that you should be on the first boat out of here.

quote:
So many are making such a big deal outta this thing.You,myself & many other Americans have to show & prove our idenity time & time again.


Identity, not citizenship. You dont even know the difference yet you are having these deep thoughts.... yikes. You have yet to ever grasp the issue being the color of your skin, the way you dress or having a 'forgein' accent or not being able to speak english as being enough (under proposed AZ law) for the police (who dont have the legal right to enforce immigration law) to stop you and arrest you.

quote:
When we get pulled over on the highway,at the Dr's office,the bank & on the list goes.So what makes it so damm difficult about if a person is involved in breaking the law somehow.Doesn't matter if their mexican,french,german,native american or John Smith from Macon,Ga.And they can't prove who the hell they are & where their from.


Again, you seem very confused over citizenship vs. identity.

quote:
Seems like thats a no brainer.Yet Obama throws this jive line out there about a family goin to get ice cream,& being detained & harrassed for their papers by the police.


Jive line? Under what you think is ideal, you know, 'forgein' accents and all, thats all that would be needed in AZ under the current proposals to get the police interested in you. The requirement for probable cause under the 4th amendment is not being used, and thats a problem. Of course, if all you really care about is getting rid of Mexicans, you can always just put aside the pesky parts of the Constitution that would hamper that cause.

quote:
I tell ya what!Any of ya'll disagree with me,then from here on out when ya go somewhere in your car etc,LEAVE YOUR ID & WALLET AT HOME.Just stuff some cash in your pocket & go about your merrily way.Then when ya get pulled over by a cop with no license,proof of insurance or registration,PLEASE come back here & post what went down.


I give the officer my DL number and he runs it on that new fangled computer in his car. Or I can give him my name and DOB and he can do the same thing. NCIC is a wonderful thing.


quote:
yeah,yeah,yeah!I know all about the whipping post forum.Thing is,i didn't wanna post this in the WP.


I cant imagine why....


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 08:18 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It doesn't matter who is in charge of maintaining the law if those laws are being held back from being enforced by political agenda.





Or lack of resources. Could've spent all those trillions spent in Iraq, say...here?


If not, maybe even some of the stimulus money would have been appropriate; would have produced jobs both long and short term as well as address the border issue.


Always comes back to those damn Democrats, huh?


SquatchTexas - 8/5/2010 at 08:19 PM

quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


Yes, but LUKE would have to learn English first.


SquatchTexas - 8/5/2010 at 08:21 PM

quote:
quote:
It is a form of racial profiling.


You continue to dismiss the "lawful contact" part of the law. A law has already been broken.


Uh huh... so says? Anything can be made into a lawful contact.


dougrhon - 8/5/2010 at 08:26 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It is a form of racial profiling.


You continue to dismiss the "lawful contact" part of the law. A law has already been broken.


Uh huh... so says? Anything can be made into a lawful contact.


As someone in law enforcement I'm sure you know about reasonable suspicion, probable cause and the volumes of caselaw setting forth what is and is not allowed under the constitution. Yes anything can be made into anything but it would include lying and perjury.


er1016 - 8/5/2010 at 08:27 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It doesn't matter who is in charge of maintaining the law if those laws are being held back from being enforced by political agenda.





Or lack of resources. Could've spent all those trillions spent in Iraq, say...here?


If not, maybe even some of the stimulus money would have been appropriate; would have produced jobs both long and short term as well as address the border issue.


Always comes back to those damn Democrats, huh?


I donít recall singling out one party over another, just stating the obvious as I thought you were.

[Edited on 8/6/2010 by enlightenrogue1016]


jim - 8/5/2010 at 08:27 PM

quote:
They have people in their family do the talking for them then translate. Kids talk to the doctors, lawyers, bankers...etc


This is true, but is can also be detrimental. We have all played a game of telephone and things get lost in translation. I am just of the belief that people would make it much easier on themselves if they did learn English.


SquatchTexas - 8/5/2010 at 08:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is a form of racial profiling.


You continue to dismiss the "lawful contact" part of the law. A law has already been broken.


Uh huh... so says? Anything can be made into a lawful contact.


As someone in law enforcement I'm sure you know about reasonable suspicion, probable cause and the volumes of caselaw setting forth what is and is not allowed under the constitution. Yes anything can be made into anything but it would include lying and perjury.


Exactly. It happens every day. Im very familiar with reasonable suspicion, probable cause and the related case law, but I also know there are officers that will 'make a case' and they have no problem fudging an arrest report. Its called building your probable cause after the fact. The biggest problem I see in all this is that there is a distinct and troubling lack of probable cause not to mention the fact that states do not have the legal authority to enforce immigration law and finally, I would wager a million dollars that if this law ever gets to the USSC for ruling, that a complete absence of the 14th amendment (equal protection) would be found in addition to the other elements I spoke of.


BIGV - 8/5/2010 at 08:40 PM

quote:
Always comes back to those damn Democrats, huh?


Right now it sure does.... Please tell us what the Democratic majority is doing to SOLVE this dilemma...


jim - 8/5/2010 at 08:50 PM

quote:
there is a distinct and troubling lack of probable cause


The law specifically states "lawful contact" has already been made before they ask. I take that to mean there has already been a law violated.


spacemonkey - 8/5/2010 at 08:58 PM

quote:
quote:
there is a distinct and troubling lack of probable cause


The law specifically states "lawful contact" has already been made before they ask. I take that to mean there has already been a law violated.


just reasonable suspicion


goldtop - 8/5/2010 at 08:59 PM

quote:
quote:
They have people in their family do the talking for them then translate. Kids talk to the doctors, lawyers, bankers...etc


This is true, but is can also be detrimental. We have all played a game of telephone and things get lost in translation. I am just of the belief that people would make it much easier on themselves if they did learn English.


I think so too. But as a side note. My Grandfather was here during the 1906 earthquake. He was stabbed by a police officer who was yelling at him. My grandfather didn't know who the police officer was talking to so he didn't respond. He kept on walking. The officer yelled a bunch of slurs and plugged his bayonet into my grandfathers a$$. He told me that when he came here he was treated poorly everywhere he went except by other Italians so he swore to never learn the language as a protest to prejudice. Hard headed, yes, but he wasn't going to he intimidated. He owned his own fishing boat and made good money, never took a dime of welfare and paid his taxes. Italians wanted very much to assimilate into the American culture. The elders expected their children to learn English but not to forget where they came from and their culture and language


Fujirich - 8/5/2010 at 09:27 PM

quote:
quote:
Always comes back to those damn Democrats, huh?


Right now it sure does.... Please tell us what the Democratic majority is doing to SOLVE this dilemma...
To be fair, factions of generally Republican backers like the status quo also. One that comes to mind is the Chamber of Commerce, who likes the current illegal situation because it provides options for low cost labor. Both sides have their motivations to embrace the current situation from certain perspectives.


mainebigdog - 8/5/2010 at 09:57 PM

neither party wants reform..repubs are supposedly pro business..dems looking out for the less fortunate..business needs cheap labor while dems get the hispanic vote..it's a win-win situation for both..it's such a crock


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:03 PM

quote:
Geez Luke...I have people in my family that don't speak English and they are citizens. Where should they be deported to?

Not everybody came over on the Mayflower...some of us have only been in the US for a few years. They don't need to speak English because they live within the community of people they immigrated with and the shop and socialize within that community



READ THE POST SLOWLY THIS TIME!
I said if someone was pulled over or had committed a crime.And could not produce (in a traffic violation)a valid drivers license,proof of insurance & registration,AND could not speak english or had a forgein accent.You better damm well beleive they should be detained until they could prove they are here legally.And just what do you suggest to do?When someone gets pulled over or is in question of being involved in a crime & they have no ID,drivers license,proof of registration,auto insurance etc AND they can't or have a hard time speaking english TO JUST LET EM GO.
Come again one more time on your gripe about what i'm saying would you?


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:13 PM

quote:
As for the Arizona law I think it is a reasonable effort but it came along at the wrong time. I too have read both the Arizona and Federal law and as best I can tell the only difference between the two is the provision that if a person is involved in a criminal activity they can be asked for verification of citizenship. In addition, we have the Justice department saying that they are not going to prosecute any city/state that provides a safe haven for illegals. Yet they are taking a state to court for wanting to uphold the very law that makes safe havens illegal...

But when you have the midterm elections coming, the House, Senate and the President under fire why would you expect this to not turn into a political football. Hence, just another day in American politics.

Luke, two weeks ago my family and I were headed home from a trip to Saint Simons. It was 11:00pm and we were on a 4 lane highway in south Ga. We topped the hill and there were cars lined up in both the east and west bound lanes, police cars everywhere.
When it was our turn to go through the road block, I was asked to show my drivers license and proof of ins. I informed the officer that I did not have my license; I had inadvertently left them at our home in Saint Simmons and I was asked to pull over to the side of the road and a officer came over to my car.

I told the second officer the same thing that I had the first officer. He asked me my name and if I knew what my license number was and I gave him the information he requested. He called it in and in a matter of 10 seconds the dispatcher on the other end of the radio confirms my name, address and that I had no warrants or outstanding traffic violations. I was told that I was free to go and to make sure I find my license and to keep them on me.

I at no time felt that anything unreasonable was being asked of me.


RIGHT ON MAN!Thats what i'm saying here.But hot air seems to be blowin thru a few heads in digesting the matter at hand.
Now let's take this reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaal slooooooooooooooooooooooooow here folks.A mexican,white person,red person,black person,eskimo etc etc etc gets pulled over & cannot produce a drivers license,proof of registration,insurance card,govt issued ID etc etc.YES they should be detained until thru the proper channels an idenity can be established.And if need be after they can't produce any means of proving who they are
YES!ASK EM FOR THEIR DAMM GREEN CARD,VISA ETC.
Now what is so &*#^*^# hard to understand there Clyde?And it ain't gotta damm thing to do with racial profiling etheir.


bigann - 8/5/2010 at 10:13 PM

Anyone pulled over who can't produce a license, proof of insurance and registration will be detained.....English speaking or not. It's called enforcing the laws on the books. I have no problem with that. After our daughter had an accident in our car when a driver ran a red light and slammed into her, I had to drive up with current proof of insurance or they'd have given her a ticket for an accident that wasn't her fault.


BIGV - 8/5/2010 at 10:18 PM

quote:
Luke, here is the part of your post that people take issue with

quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



You are assuming that if they can't speak English or have an accent that they are illegals.
quote:


If they are Hispanic?..Hell yes

quote:
There are plenty of people in this country with accents or don't speak English who are here legally.


Then they have zero to be worried about. Play by the rules, obey the law...No problem.


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:20 PM

quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.
Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:24 PM

quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.







No SpACE monKEy it ain't!Who said anything about birth certificates?If ya drive,by law you are required to have a VALID DRIVERS LICENSE,PROOF OF INSURANCE,& A REGISTRATION FOR THE VEHICLE.If ya don't the above documents & can't prove who the hell ya are.Ya better damm well beleive ya should be taken into custody until the matter is solved.Who knows what kinda criminal activity the person could have been involved in?And to worry about racial profiling someone,,gimmie a friggin break!


BIGV - 8/5/2010 at 10:27 PM

quote:
That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.


Break the FIRST law of the land by entering ILLEGALLY, only to fall under the protection of the law...

You don't see the catch 22 there?


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:30 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.






"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


It is not a matter of political correctness, It is a matter of the constitution.

the "They" being protected are the legal immigrants and Hispanics.



[Edited on 8/5/2010 by spacemonkey]



THE CONSTITUTION?Are you kidding me monkey?Obama is a progressive man.I thought they believed the constitution was out dated.And he sure don't seem to be concerned about what our founding fathers had in mind for our protection as well.
Upholding the constitution,,,lmfao.Guess the mosque next to the old twin towers falls under that line too ah?


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:32 PM

quote:
quote:
Scratchin the head thinkin bout this one.I've been hearin all this racial profiling stuff etc etc,about asking folks for their visa,green card,immigration papers etc.What is the big deal if someone is pulled over in a traffic violation or detained in breaking the law somehow & asked for their drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration in a traffic violation?


Well first and foremost is that states do not have the legal authority under the Constitution to enforce immigration laws.

quote:
Or in another way of breaking the law asked for their idenification.And if they can't or won't produce these documents.And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.


Wow. Deportation for having a 'forgein' (sic) accent or cant speak english? Ive read enough of your posts to determine that you should be on the first boat out of here.

quote:
So many are making such a big deal outta this thing.You,myself & many other Americans have to show & prove our idenity time & time again.


Identity, not citizenship. You dont even know the difference yet you are having these deep thoughts.... yikes. You have yet to ever grasp the issue being the color of your skin, the way you dress or having a 'forgein' accent or not being able to speak english as being enough (under proposed AZ law) for the police (who dont have the legal right to enforce immigration law) to stop you and arrest you.

quote:
When we get pulled over on the highway,at the Dr's office,the bank & on the list goes.So what makes it so damm difficult about if a person is involved in breaking the law somehow.Doesn't matter if their mexican,french,german,native american or John Smith from Macon,Ga.And they can't prove who the hell they are & where their from.


Again, you seem very confused over citizenship vs. identity.

quote:
Seems like thats a no brainer.Yet Obama throws this jive line out there about a family goin to get ice cream,& being detained & harrassed for their papers by the police.


Jive line? Under what you think is ideal, you know, 'forgein' accents and all, thats all that would be needed in AZ under the current proposals to get the police interested in you. The requirement for probable cause under the 4th amendment is not being used, and thats a problem. Of course, if all you really care about is getting rid of Mexicans, you can always just put aside the pesky parts of the Constitution that would hamper that cause.

quote:
I tell ya what!Any of ya'll disagree with me,then from here on out when ya go somewhere in your car etc,LEAVE YOUR ID & WALLET AT HOME.Just stuff some cash in your pocket & go about your merrily way.Then when ya get pulled over by a cop with no license,proof of insurance or registration,PLEASE come back here & post what went down.


I give the officer my DL number and he runs it on that new fangled computer in his car. Or I can give him my name and DOB and he can do the same thing. NCIC is a wonderful thing.


quote:
yeah,yeah,yeah!I know all about the whipping post forum.Thing is,i didn't wanna post this in the WP.


I cant imagine why....


Go watch your Perry Mason Anthology dvd box set.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 10:32 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.
Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.


In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:36 PM

quote:
Luke, here is the part of your post that people take issue with

quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



You are assuming that if they can't speak English or have an accent that they are illegals. There are plenty of people in this country with accents or don't speak English who are here legally.



NO DRIVERS LICENSE,NO PROOF OF INSURANCE,NO REGISTRATION,SPEAK NO ENGLISH?
yes your ass is goin to jail till you can prove who the &*^$ you are AND that you have the RIGHT to be here.**LEGALLY**


gina - 8/5/2010 at 10:43 PM

In my job, if the people (clients) are illegal aliens, they are just called "undocumented". Aliens is rather foreboding. There are a lot of people here who are illegal, they don't drive, so they don't have identification. They work as day laborers, stay with friends or sleep in the woods. The process for citizenship is a long one. These people need to be able to go to an office and get a card that says who they are so if a cop stops them, they can show them something. Throwing peope in jail because they have no id when you make it close to impossible for them to get any legitamite id is bad policy. Set up offices and give them cards where they can at least have their name, date of birth, home address (outside this country - in the event something bad happens at least someone from their homeland can be properly notified), country of origin. We all know the addresses they are at here in this country are often transient. It will not endorse their illegal status NOR punish them or send them to deportation. It just provides them something while they struggle to navigate the system here. If a cop stops him unless he has committed a crime (outright) they should not be arrested.

Just leave them alone until or unless they commit a crime that is serious enough they should be deported for it.


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.
Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.


In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.



Scrap the speaking english for a minute.ONE MORE TIME & herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre we go.
1.Person gets pulled over in vehicle
2.Can't produce a valid drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration for the vehicle
3.Can't speak english or communicate with the officer


WTF does the officer do then?
Seems all the answers are floatin somewhere around here.So would someone please cough up the answer.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 10:45 PM

quote:
quote:
Geez Luke...I have people in my family that don't speak English and they are citizens. Where should they be deported to?

Not everybody came over on the Mayflower...some of us have only been in the US for a few years. They don't need to speak English because they live within the community of people they immigrated with and the shop and socialize within that community



READ THE POST SLOWLY THIS TIME!
I said if someone was pulled over or had committed a crime.And could not produce (in a traffic violation)a valid drivers license,proof of insurance & registration,AND could not speak english or had a forgein accent.You better damm well beleive they should be detained until they could prove they are here legally.And just what do you suggest to do?When someone gets pulled over or is in question of being involved in a crime & they have no ID,drivers license,proof of registration,auto insurance etc AND they can't or have a hard time speaking english TO JUST LET EM GO.
Come again one more time on your gripe about what i'm saying would you?


I work with a gal who is 42. Born in America from American parents of Mexican descent, but they moved to Mexico when she was a baby, then moved back to the USA when she was 12. Spanish is her first language, it's what she spoke in her formulative years. She is as American as you or me, but she has a fairly heavy Spanish accent and she always will. Are you saying in that scenario, where you are already going to be in trouble for not having any ID or anything else, that she should be detained until she proves her citizenship, even though she is a natural-born American with a heavy accent?

I understand where you are coming from, but ability to speak English to a varying degree doesn't really have a place in the equation, in my opinion. There's just too many variables. Lack of proper ID is enough.


gina - 8/5/2010 at 10:46 PM

quote:
If you come from any latin country or european country you don't need to speak english to get around. So the elderly that come first don't usually learn english except hello goodbye....and Money...Money speaks. They have people in their family do the talking for them then translate. Kids talk to the doctors, lawyers, bankers...etc

My wife is from Portugal. Her parents speak some english but when it come to really describing complex ideas in detail they speak to my wife in Portugese and she translate to english for who ever they need to communicate with. The same thing we did for my grandparents and elderly uncles and aunts from Italy

Learning a Bus sytem just takes learning numbers and spelling of street names. You don't need to know how to pronouce the name of a street if you know how to spell it. Since they use the same type of letters we use in english its not that hard.


Many of the cab drivers in NYC do not speak English fluently, but they understand addresses, so the riders can get where they need to go. They also understand yelling and pointing, so people get along.


spacemonkey - 8/5/2010 at 10:48 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.






"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


It is not a matter of political correctness, It is a matter of the constitution.

the "They" being protected are the legal immigrants and Hispanics.



[Edited on 8/5/2010 by spacemonkey]



THE CONSTITUTION?Are you kidding me monkey?Obama is a progressive man.I thought they believed the constitution was out dated.And he sure don't seem to be concerned about what our founding fathers had in mind for our protection as well.
Upholding the constitution,,,lmfao.Guess the mosque next to the old twin towers falls under that line too ah?


Yes that mosque next to the twin towers is protected by the constitutional right of freedom of religion.

and it protects the rights of Hispanic Americana as well.

You must have skipped Civics class.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 10:49 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.






"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


It is not a matter of political correctness, It is a matter of the constitution.

the "They" being protected are the legal immigrants and Hispanics.



[Edited on 8/5/2010 by spacemonkey]



THE CONSTITUTION?Are you kidding me monkey?Obama is a progressive man.I thought they believed the constitution was out dated.And he sure don't seem to be concerned about what our founding fathers had in mind for our protection as well.
Upholding the constitution,,,lmfao.Guess the mosque next to the old twin towers falls under that line too ah?


When did he say the Constitution was outdated? The original document had provisions for slavery and women had no political rights whatsoever. Was it wrong that those things were changed?


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 10:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.
Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.


In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.



Scrap the speaking english for a minute.ONE MORE TIME & herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre we go.
1.Person gets pulled over in vehicle
2.Can't produce a valid drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration for the vehicle
3.Can't speak english or communicate with the officer


WTF does the officer do then?
Seems all the answers are floatin somewhere around here.So would someone please cough up the answer.




What does the officer do? I would assume whoever got pullled over is already in a world of hurt for #2 on the list, whether they are speaking English, Spanish, or in tongues.


LUKE - 8/5/2010 at 10:55 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.






"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


It is not a matter of political correctness, It is a matter of the constitution.

the "They" being protected are the legal immigrants and Hispanics.



[Edited on 8/5/2010 by spacemonkey]



THE CONSTITUTION?Are you kidding me monkey?Obama is a progressive man.I thought they believed the constitution was out dated.And he sure don't seem to be concerned about what our founding fathers had in mind for our protection as well.
Upholding the constitution,,,lmfao.Guess the mosque next to the old twin towers falls under that line too ah?


When did he say the Constitution was outdated? The original document had provisions for slavery and women had no political rights whatsoever. Was it wrong that those things were changed?


My noni juice/mountain dew buzz is dying off,time to eat supper.
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE YA!
Contact Squatch on that question.He's the resident counsel on duty tonight.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 10:59 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke is making a apples / oranges comparison.

How many times Luke have have you been asked for your birth certificate during a routine traffic stop?

that is the same as asking an immigrant for his green card.

That is the flaw in the Arizona Law. unequal protection under the law.
The cops in Arizona don't ask non-Hispanics for their birth certificates.

It is a form of racial profiling.






"Racial Profiling"...Of course it is...The PROBLEM is with Mexico and other Latin nations... if you can't profile, how do you propose we fix this?......They stream over the border ILLEGALLY...But we can't ask for proof of Citizenship?...The perfect catch 22...

Feels like they are "protected"...from being singled out for breaking the Law..

Political correctness be damned.


It is not a matter of political correctness, It is a matter of the constitution.

the "They" being protected are the legal immigrants and Hispanics.



[Edited on 8/5/2010 by spacemonkey]



THE CONSTITUTION?Are you kidding me monkey?Obama is a progressive man.I thought they believed the constitution was out dated.And he sure don't seem to be concerned about what our founding fathers had in mind for our protection as well.
Upholding the constitution,,,lmfao.Guess the mosque next to the old twin towers falls under that line too ah?


When did he say the Constitution was outdated? The original document had provisions for slavery and women had no political rights whatsoever. Was it wrong that those things were changed?


My noni juice/mountain dew buzz is dying off,time to eat supper.
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE YA!
Contact Squatch on that question.He's the resident counsel on duty tonight.


Noni juice?


rmack - 8/5/2010 at 11:02 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Upholding the constitution,,,lmfao.Guess the mosque next to the old twin towers falls under that line too ah?


Actually....yes it does.


Fujirich - 8/5/2010 at 11:06 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.

The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.
So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.

Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.
In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.
Scrap the speaking english for a minute.ONE MORE TIME & herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre we go.
1.Person gets pulled over in vehicle
2.Can't produce a valid drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration for the vehicle
3.Can't speak english or communicate with the officer


WTF does the officer do then?
Seems all the answers are floatin somewhere around here.So would someone please cough up the answer.
What does the officer do? I would assume whoever got pullled over is already in a world of hurt for #2 on the list, whether they are speaking English, Spanish, or in tongues.
Some want to solve this conundrum by making things worse: having a national ID. So instead of hurting PC feelings about profiling, they propose to have EVERYBODY produce "their papers" everywhere, for everything.

I understand the PC sensitivities, but frankly I'd rather risk a little profiling than force national ID's on everyone. This is the problem with many so-called solutions coming from Washington these days. Instead of solving the specific problem, PC concerns force us to design solutions that throw a net around everyone. Health care was a perfect example. We were told that the biggest problem that needed solving was the 20-30 million who couldn't get care. So do we design a fix for just that? Hell no! We change conditions for all 300+ million. We've wrapped ourselves in so many rules and conditions that common sense is no longer applicable.


Bhawk - 8/5/2010 at 11:13 PM

quote:
Some want to solve this conundrum by making things worse: having a national ID. So instead of hurting PC feelings about profiling, they propose to have EVERYBODY produce "their papers" everywhere, for everything.

I understand the PC sensitivities, but frankly I'd rather risk a little profiling than force national ID's on everyone. This is the problem with many so-called solutions coming from Washington these days. Instead of solving the specific problem, PC concerns force us to design solutions that throw a net around everyone.


The first step towards National ID was the REAL ID Act, and that had nothing to do with being PC, it was about fighting terrorism.


SquatchTexas - 8/5/2010 at 11:47 PM

quote:
Go watch your Perry Mason Anthology dvd box set.


And now we know why you didnt want to post your mental droppings in the WP. Reading the other responses you have given has been truly entertaining.


er1016 - 8/5/2010 at 11:55 PM


Granted I havenít read this in its entirety, upon cursory review it seem that this addresses a lot of the issues being discussed here. Which raises the question, why arenít these laws, policy and procedures being enforced?





The REAL ID Act implements the following:

Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australian citizens.
Establishing new national standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards.
Funding some reports and pilot projects related to border security.
Introducing rules covering "delivery bonds" (rather like bail bonds but for aliens who have been released pending hearings).
Updating and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity.
Waiving laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders.

Immigration

As of May 11, 2005, several portions of the Real ID Act have imposed higher burdens and stricter standards of proof for individuals applying for asylum and other related forms of relief. For the first time, immigration judges can require an applicant to produce corroborating evidence (8 U.S.C. ß 1229a(c)(4)(B). Additionally, the government may also require that an applicant produce corroborating evidence, a requirement that may only be overcome if the judge is convinced that such evidence is unavailable (8 U.S.C. ß 1252(b)(4)).

Restricting illegal immigrants or legal immigrants who can't prove their legal status, or are without social security numbers, from obtaining driver's licenses may keep them from obtaining liability insurance. But, the new law does allow states to offer "not for federal ID" licenses in these cases. In fact, several states (e.g., Utah and Tennessee) have already started issuing such "driving privileges certificates/cards" in lieu of regular drivers licenses, allowing such applicants to be tested and licensed to drive and obtain liability insurance.[citation needed] In October 2007, then-governor of New York Eliot Spitzer announced that the state will adopt a similar "multi-tiered" licensing scheme in which the state will issue three different kinds of driver licenses, two of which comply with the Real ID security requirements and one which will be marked as "not for federal ID" purposes.[18] However, following a political outcry, Spitzer withdrew his proposal to issue licenses to those unable to prove legal residence.[19]

[edit] Waiving laws that interfere with construction of border barriers
An earlier law (Section 102 of Pub.L. 104-208, which is now part of 8 U.S.C. ß 1103) provided for improvements to physical barriers at the borders of the United States.

Subsection (a) of this law reads as follows: "The Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States."

Subsection (b) orders the Attorney General to commence work on specified improvements to a 14-mile section of the existing border fence near San Diego, and allocates funds for the project.

Subsection (c) provides for waivers of laws that interfere with the work described in subsections (a) and (b). Prior to the Real ID Act, this subsection allowed waivers of only two specific federal environmental laws.

The Real ID Act amends the language of subsection (c) to make the following changes:

Allows waivers of any and all laws "necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."
Gives this waiver authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security (rather than the Attorney General). Waivers are made at his sole discretion.
Restricts court review of waiver decisions: "The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all causes or claims arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1). A cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States. The court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim not specified in this subparagraph." Claims are barred unless filed within 60 days, and cases may be appealed "only upon petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court".



[Edited on 8/6/2010 by enlightenrogue1016]


rmack - 8/6/2010 at 12:09 AM

quote:
Luke, here is the part of your post that people take issue with

quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



You are assuming that if they can't speak English or have an accent that they are illegals. There are plenty of people in this country with accents or don't speak English who are here legally.


Luke, maybe if they worked really hard, they could write English as well as you do.

[Edited on 8/6/2010 by rmack]


SquatchTexas - 8/6/2010 at 12:18 AM

quote:

Granted I havenít read this in its entirety, upon cursory review it seem that this addresses a lot of the issues being discussed here. Which raises the question, why arenít these laws, policy and procedures being enforced?



As I understand it, a majority of the states were going to have trouble meeting the technical requirements so they extended the deadline. I havent actually heard much about it for a while though.


2112 - 8/6/2010 at 12:33 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.

The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.
So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.

Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.
In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.
Scrap the speaking english for a minute.ONE MORE TIME & herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre we go.
1.Person gets pulled over in vehicle
2.Can't produce a valid drivers license,proof of insurance,& registration for the vehicle
3.Can't speak english or communicate with the officer


WTF does the officer do then?
Seems all the answers are floatin somewhere around here.So would someone please cough up the answer.
What does the officer do? I would assume whoever got pullled over is already in a world of hurt for #2 on the list, whether they are speaking English, Spanish, or in tongues.
Some want to solve this conundrum by making things worse: having a national ID. So instead of hurting PC feelings about profiling, they propose to have EVERYBODY produce "their papers" everywhere, for everything.

I understand the PC sensitivities, but frankly I'd rather risk a little profiling than force national ID's on everyone. This is the problem with many so-called solutions coming from Washington these days. Instead of solving the specific problem, PC concerns force us to design solutions that throw a net around everyone. Health care was a perfect example. We were told that the biggest problem that needed solving was the 20-30 million who couldn't get care. So do we design a fix for just that? Hell no! We change conditions for all 300+ million. We've wrapped ourselves in so many rules and conditions that common sense is no longer applicable.


It's easy to say you'd risk a little profiling if you're not the one being profiled. Ask Americans of Japanese decent who were sent to internment camps during WWII if it was fair to be profiled based on skin color or accent while Americans of German decent got to live a normal life.


Fujirich - 8/6/2010 at 02:10 AM

quote:
It's easy to say you'd risk a little profiling if you're not the one being profiled. Ask Americans of Japanese decent who were sent to internment camps during WWII if it was fair to be profiled based on skin color or accent while Americans of German decent got to live a normal life.
Apples and oranges.

No one is even remotely suggesting locking up people in long-term detention camps. The vast majority of the country just wants proper immigration standards and laws to be the exclusive method of becoming an American citizen or temporary visa resident (student, worker, whatever). Those who don't follow that process should be dealt with as criminals, just as they are in virtually every other country - including most that lie south of our border.

To think that our govt doesn't deal with individuals differently based on identifying factors is absurd. They award contracts, grants, or aid based on race or group affiliations (unions), favoring one type of person and discriminating against others. They treat vast groups differently based on economic factors. To say that we can't identify one group as the majority of the problem in regard to immigration is just a complete dismissal of common sense and inconsistent with all the other "group" based initiatives that govt operates with every day.


dougrhon - 8/6/2010 at 02:20 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.
Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.


In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.


Where did the accent thing come from? My grandparents were legally immigrants and became American citizens. They never lost their thick accents but they spoke perfect English. Everyone should speak English because it is a common tie for a diverse people. It's as simple as that. It's a matter of civics not economics. We need more things to bring us together as Americans while we continue to honor our own respective ethnic, racial and religious heritage.


PhotoRon286 - 8/6/2010 at 03:26 AM

quote:
When I view this site, I always make notice of when LUKE starts a thread or posts in one.

Upon reading what he has typed,the first thing that comes to my mind is what country was he born,raised and most importantly educated in? He's obviously not an American.

So tell us LUKE, what country are you from? Do I need a passport to get there or do I need to hire a spaceship and crew? Because NOBODY that was born and raised in the United States of America types the English language as piss poor as you.

EVEN THE ILLEGALS.


LMFAO!

By the way Luke, rush forgot to mention that the evil mosque ISN'T ACTUALLY AT ground zero, it's several blocks away.

You ever been in a big city like New York???

Those blocks are BIG.

You can't see ground zero from that site, and you can't see the site from ground zero.

How far away from Catholic churches should schools be placed???


sixty8 - 8/6/2010 at 04:14 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.
Me neither. Even now the Republicans try to never even bring up the whole amnesty subject when talking about Reagan's legacy because it is indefensible. They are too busy trying to make him sound like some perfect Godly president which he wasn't. I don't think he was bad but not as great as portrayed. IMO his administration and their granting of amnesty to illegals is what has led us to the uncontrollable illegal immigrant problem we have now!!! I am not for amnesty for illegals at all!
Hold on a second. Reagan signed a bill to both grant amnesty and secure the borders (Simpson-Mazzoli Act) on Nov. 6, 1986, with just a little more than two years left in his Presidency.

Securing the borders is not something you just snap your fingers and do. It takes years of management, funding, and follow-up. I'm not trying to make Reagan out any better than he was. But at the same time, let's look at the issue in proper context.

The follow-up for this law mostly falls under the purview of Congress. Who was in charge of Congress for all those years?

[Edited on 8/5/2010 by Fujirich]


Well, he was followed by George HW Bush. What happened???


jim - 8/6/2010 at 01:40 PM

quote:
The law specifically states "lawful contact" has already been made before they ask. I take that to mean there has already been a law violated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



just reasonable suspicion


Not true. There has already been lawful contact made, i.e. the person has violated a law already. It is identical (nearly) to federal law. For those who have not read it, here are both laws. Here is the AZ law:


For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

And federal law:

(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrantó
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;


Bhawk - 8/6/2010 at 01:41 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And they have a strong forgein accent or flat out can't speak english(no matter what the color of their skin is)then take em into custody & proceed with deportation,charging them with the crime in question etc.



The United States of America does not have an official language. You think it should, write your Congressman.


So what do you suggest to do in the middle of the night,on a desert highway,after a murder has been committed,& cars are being stopped & the occupants questioned.And lo & behold 6 or 7 cars & trucks are motioned to go on thru & not stop.All because the officer that flagged em down radioed ahead and told the other officers they couldn't speak english.
Oh i know!They could fly a host of foreign speaking ACLU members out in the middle of the night to make sense of the jibber-jabber.And the american tax payer could foot the bill.


In the original post you presented a scenario where someone having a heavy accent or not being able to speak perfect English is a key part of knowing whether someone is legal. You do not have be able to speak English perfectly to be a citizen, resident alien or have some sort of legal immigrant status. You just don't. We don't have an official language, and you can't blame that on Obama or the ACLU, because those people weren't around in the 1770s.


Where did the accent thing come from? My grandparents were legally immigrants and became American citizens. They never lost their thick accents but they spoke perfect English. Everyone should speak English because it is a common tie for a diverse people. It's as simple as that. It's a matter of civics not economics. We need more things to bring us together as Americans while we continue to honor our own respective ethnic, racial and religious heritage.


The accent thing came from Luke, not me. You and I are actually in agreement on this one.


LikeToSmoke - 8/6/2010 at 01:47 PM

In my town they have a seperate Chamber of Commerce for Hispanics. Many local businesses agree to only do business with Spanish speaking businesses. Numerous times customers of ours have refused service from us because we don't have any Spanish speaking technicians.

The guy who owns the local liquor store refuses to speak English. I have told him many times that I don't speak Spanish, but he refuses to address me in English. He told me: You live here, You need to learn Spanish.


DougMacKenzie - 8/6/2010 at 03:32 PM

I think it still all comes back to enforcement. That's where I think the feds are falling down,and have been for decades. Enforce the laws on the books, especailly against those who emply illegal aliens. That would leave some consequences to deal with, so let's deal with them. Who knows? With the economy and employment stiuation the way it is, if you just enforced the current laws the market may eventually help deal with the immigration issue.


Fujirich - 8/6/2010 at 03:49 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I sure don't remember all the conservatives being upset when Reagan granted blanket amnesty for 10,000,000 illegals back in the 80's.
Me neither. Even now the Republicans try to never even bring up the whole amnesty subject when talking about Reagan's legacy because it is indefensible. They are too busy trying to make him sound like some perfect Godly president which he wasn't. I don't think he was bad but not as great as portrayed. IMO his administration and their granting of amnesty to illegals is what has led us to the uncontrollable illegal immigrant problem we have now!!! I am not for amnesty for illegals at all!
Hold on a second. Reagan signed a bill to both grant amnesty and secure the borders (Simpson-Mazzoli Act) on Nov. 6, 1986, with just a little more than two years left in his Presidency.

Securing the borders is not something you just snap your fingers and do. It takes years of management, funding, and follow-up. I'm not trying to make Reagan out any better than he was. But at the same time, let's look at the issue in proper context.

The follow-up for this law mostly falls under the purview of Congress. Who was in charge of Congress for all those years?
Well, he was followed by George HW Bush. What happened???
I'm not trying devolve this into a meaningless fight about party alignments, but instead about who has control. An administration can't really do anything without ongoing Congressional agreement on funding and direction. To lay failure on this issue at the foot of any President kinda over simplifies the process and excludes scrutiny that should, at a minimum, be shared with Congress.

A reverse example would be giving Clinton all the credit for balancing the Federal budget. The Presidency doesn't have final budget authority; Congress does. Clinton's administration didn't initiate things like welfare reduction and overall Federal cuts, that was far more Congressional in origin.

The point I'm making is only that we shouldn't ignore Congress in all of these things. Its easier to pin good or bad on a President because its a single person, and while its a powerful position, not much gets accomplished without a cooperative Congress.


Bhawk - 8/6/2010 at 05:01 PM

quote:

Granted I havenít read this in its entirety, upon cursory review it seem that this addresses a lot of the issues being discussed here. Which raises the question, why arenít these laws, policy and procedures being enforced?





The REAL ID Act implements the following:

Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australian citizens.
Establishing new national standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards.
Funding some reports and pilot projects related to border security.
Introducing rules covering "delivery bonds" (rather like bail bonds but for aliens who have been released pending hearings).
Updating and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity.
Waiving laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders.

Immigration

As of May 11, 2005, several portions of the Real ID Act have imposed higher burdens and stricter standards of proof for individuals applying for asylum and other related forms of relief. For the first time, immigration judges can require an applicant to produce corroborating evidence (8 U.S.C. ß 1229a(c)(4)(B). Additionally, the government may also require that an applicant produce corroborating evidence, a requirement that may only be overcome if the judge is convinced that such evidence is unavailable (8 U.S.C. ß 1252(b)(4)).

Restricting illegal immigrants or legal immigrants who can't prove their legal status, or are without social security numbers, from obtaining driver's licenses may keep them from obtaining liability insurance. But, the new law does allow states to offer "not for federal ID" licenses in these cases. In fact, several states (e.g., Utah and Tennessee) have already started issuing such "driving privileges certificates/cards" in lieu of regular drivers licenses, allowing such applicants to be tested and licensed to drive and obtain liability insurance.[citation needed] In October 2007, then-governor of New York Eliot Spitzer announced that the state will adopt a similar "multi-tiered" licensing scheme in which the state will issue three different kinds of driver licenses, two of which comply with the Real ID security requirements and one which will be marked as "not for federal ID" purposes.[18] However, following a political outcry, Spitzer withdrew his proposal to issue licenses to those unable to prove legal residence.[19]

[edit] Waiving laws that interfere with construction of border barriers
An earlier law (Section 102 of Pub.L. 104-208, which is now part of 8 U.S.C. ß 1103) provided for improvements to physical barriers at the borders of the United States.

Subsection (a) of this law reads as follows: "The Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States."

Subsection (b) orders the Attorney General to commence work on specified improvements to a 14-mile section of the existing border fence near San Diego, and allocates funds for the project.

Subsection (c) provides for waivers of laws that interfere with the work described in subsections (a) and (b). Prior to the Real ID Act, this subsection allowed waivers of only two specific federal environmental laws.

The Real ID Act amends the language of subsection (c) to make the following changes:

Allows waivers of any and all laws "necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."
Gives this waiver authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security (rather than the Attorney General). Waivers are made at his sole discretion.
Restricts court review of waiver decisions: "The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all causes or claims arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1). A cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States. The court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim not specified in this subparagraph." Claims are barred unless filed within 60 days, and cases may be appealed "only upon petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court".



[Edited on 8/6/2010 by enlightenrogue1016]


The REAL ID Act was pretty much optional for states to participate in or not.


Bhawk - 8/6/2010 at 05:04 PM

quote:
No one is even remotely suggesting locking up people in long-term detention camps. The vast majority of the country just wants proper immigration standards and laws to be the exclusive method of becoming an American citizen or temporary visa resident (student, worker, whatever). Those who don't follow that process should be dealt with as criminals, just as they are in virtually every other country - including most that lie south of our border.



That sounds nice and all, but, logistically, how does the gov't deport 10-12 million people?


SantaCruzBluz - 8/6/2010 at 05:04 PM

I don't have a problem with a national I.D. It would solve a lot of problems. When I am traveling abroad, I take great comfort in the American passport I carry. I don't mind carrying a card in my wallet to prove I am who I am and that I am an American citizen. Why would anyone oppose that?


PauliG - 8/6/2010 at 05:16 PM

I'm not sure why this issue is suddenly such a big issue...

I just think of it this way, if I'm speeding and a cop pulls me over I expect to get a ticket.

If I am caught stealing, I expect to be arrested.

If you are doing something illegal and get caught, you pay the consequence.


BIGV - 8/6/2010 at 05:47 PM

quote:
In my town they have a seperate Chamber of Commerce for Hispanics. Many local businesses agree to only do business with Spanish speaking businesses. Numerous times customers of ours have refused service from us because we don't have any Spanish speaking technicians.

The guy who owns the local liquor store refuses to speak English. I have told him many times that I don't speak Spanish, but he refuses to address me in English. He told me: You live here, You need to learn Spanish.


Where is this?


spacemonkey - 8/6/2010 at 06:37 PM

quote:
quote:
The law specifically states "lawful contact" has already been made before they ask. I take that to mean there has already been a law violated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



just reasonable suspicion


Not true. There has already been lawful contact made, i.e. the person has violated a law already. It is identical (nearly) to federal law. For those who have not read it, here are both laws. Here is the AZ law:


For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

And federal law:

(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrantó
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;



lawful contact does not mean any law has been violated.

Innocent until proven guilty still applies.



MundeleinHoward - 8/6/2010 at 06:58 PM

quote:
....I'm not trying devolve this into a meaningless fight about party alignments, but instead about who has control. An administration can't really do anything without ongoing Congressional agreement on funding and direction. To lay failure on this issue at the foot of any President kinda over simplifies the process and excludes scrutiny that should, at a minimum, be shared with Congress.

A reverse example would be giving Clinton all the credit for balancing the Federal budget. The Presidency doesn't have final budget authority; Congress does. Clinton's administration didn't initiate things like welfare reduction and overall Federal cuts, that was far more Congressional in origin.

The point I'm making is only that we shouldn't ignore Congress in all of these things. Its easier to pin good or bad on a President because its a single person, and while its a powerful position, not much gets accomplished without a cooperative Congress.


I agree with the Congress bit, which is why I'm sick & tired of people saying the rise in the deficit is Obama's fault. Granted Dems have the majority in both houses, but the vast majority of ALL congress critters are wholy owned subsidities of CORPORATE AMERICA & their lobbyists. This is another reason why illegals are working here, because they're cheaper & will keep quiet so as not to be deported


sixty8 - 8/6/2010 at 07:02 PM

quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D. It would solve a lot of problems. When I am traveling abroad, I take great comfort in the American passport I carry. I don't mind carrying a card in my wallet to prove I am who I am and that I am an American citizen. Why would anyone oppose that?


That is exactly what we need, a National ID card. You don't have one you can't work here or rent a place to live here. Employers and renters caught hiring or renting to illegal immigrants get massive fines. When there is no work and no place to live they will go home. Then we can let in the number of workers we need with temporary worker cards which would be needed to get hired or rent a place to live and would allow us to track them.


BIGV - 8/6/2010 at 07:06 PM

quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D.



Isn't that now commonly referred to as a Driver's License?


dougrhon - 8/6/2010 at 07:07 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The law specifically states "lawful contact" has already been made before they ask. I take that to mean there has already been a law violated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



just reasonable suspicion


Not true. There has already been lawful contact made, i.e. the person has violated a law already. It is identical (nearly) to federal law. For those who have not read it, here are both laws. Here is the AZ law:


For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

And federal law:

(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrantó
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;



lawful contact does not mean any law has been violated.

Innocent until proven guilty still applies.





Only a court of law can determine if a law has been violated. The police can stop and search and/or arrest (there are separate standards and a warrant may or may not be needed) based on probable cause that a law has been violated.


dougrhon - 8/6/2010 at 07:08 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D. It would solve a lot of problems. When I am traveling abroad, I take great comfort in the American passport I carry. I don't mind carrying a card in my wallet to prove I am who I am and that I am an American citizen. Why would anyone oppose that?


That is exactly what we need, a National ID card. You don't have one you can't work here or rent a place to live here. Employers and renters caught hiring or renting to illegal immigrants get massive fines. When there is no work and no place to live they will go home. Then we can let in the number of workers we need with temporary worker cards which would be needed to get hired or rent a place to live and would allow us to track them.


I agree. Who opposes this and why?


skyponydogboy - 8/6/2010 at 07:15 PM

Any 'required' card is an infringment on freedom. No, I am not explaining my opinion.


Bhawk - 8/6/2010 at 07:18 PM

quote:
Any 'required' card is an infringment on freedom. No, I am not explaining my opinion.


You ever have before?


sixty8 - 8/6/2010 at 09:00 PM

quote:
Any 'required' card is an infringment on freedom. No, I am not explaining my opinion.


Well, then just live with the illegals and don't complain. Law abiding citizens of the United States should have no problem with having National ID cards IMO. It would be the best way to deal with this problem IMO.


hotlantatim - 8/6/2010 at 09:11 PM

No thanks on a massive government electronic database with enough information to prove who every person in the United States is (and enough information to differentiate them). It's way to much central information and power in the hands of the central government. There are ways to solve our illegal immigration problem without a national ID card.


bigann - 8/6/2010 at 09:20 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D.



Isn't that now commonly referred to as a Driver's License?



Or social security number?


sixty8 - 8/6/2010 at 09:29 PM

quote:
No thanks on a massive government electronic database with enough information to prove who every person in the United States is (and enough information to differentiate them). It's way to much central information and power in the hands of the central government. There are ways to solve our illegal immigration problem without a national ID card.


Well, then what is your idea because they keep coming and people keep hiring them and renting to them. As long as these employers and renters are profiting from the illegals without recourse there will never ever be a way to stop them or get the ones here already to leave. A National ID card would do the job in the most effective and inexpensive way IMO. Only those with something to hide should be afraid of National ID cards.


PhotoRon286 - 8/6/2010 at 09:29 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D.



Isn't that now commonly referred to as a Driver's License?



Not everyone drives.


sixty8 - 8/6/2010 at 09:33 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D.



Isn't that now commonly referred to as a Driver's License?



Or social security number?


It is too easy in this country to get phony drivers licenses as well as Social Security numbers and a lot of the illegals get them all of the time illegally of course. We need a national card that can't be duplicated or distributed illegally.


er1016 - 8/6/2010 at 10:00 PM

quote:
quote:
No thanks on a massive government electronic database with enough information to prove who every person in the United States is (and enough information to differentiate them). It's way to much central information and power in the hands of the central government. There are ways to solve our illegal immigration problem without a national ID card.


Well, then what is your idea because they keep coming and people keep hiring them and renting to them. As long as these employers and renters are profiting from the illegals without recourse there will never ever be a way to stop them or get the ones here already to leave. A National ID card would do the job in the most effective and inexpensive way IMO. Only those with something to hide should be afraid of National ID cards.


For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Fujirich - 8/6/2010 at 10:11 PM

quote:
quote:
No one is even remotely suggesting locking up people in long-term detention camps. The vast majority of the country just wants proper immigration standards and laws to be the exclusive method of becoming an American citizen or temporary visa resident (student, worker, whatever). Those who don't follow that process should be dealt with as criminals, just as they are in virtually every other country - including most that lie south of our border.



That sounds nice and all, but, logistically, how does the gov't deport 10-12 million people?
I wouldn't suggest deportment - costs too much and would be impossible in any practical sense.

First; truly secure the borders to stop the continued flow of illegals. Second; improve E-Verify to satisfy that it's accurate to a high-degree, and provide for an efficient system to appeal any questionable results. Third; raise the fines WAY UP (jail time?) on employers who hire illegals, and conduct more workplace raids - not to capture the illegals, but to prosecute the employers.

Then wait about two years. Give these new measures time for many illegals to self-deport, as they will if conditions become difficult or them to find employment.

Only after this process plays out do we implement some kind of path to citizenship for anyone remaining. And even that must include payment of back taxes, fine & penalties, and a generally slow process for those who crossed illegally. Waiting more years for citizenship and paying fines, while employment for them remains difficult, many illegals will continue to self-deport.

At the same time, open up and speed the path to citizenship for the kind of talent and brainpower we really need to grow our economy and build the future. Engineers, mathematicians, scientists - we should be opening the door wide for people who can really add something. It makes no sense that people with no education and no skills are let in by the millions, while high-tech companies are screaming to permit talented foreigners with guaranteed jobs legal entry. Its completely backwards.

Finally - if possible - kill the whole "anchor baby" process once and for all.

Not much to ask, right?


Fujirich - 8/6/2010 at 10:36 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D. It would solve a lot of problems. When I am traveling abroad, I take great comfort in the American passport I carry. I don't mind carrying a card in my wallet to prove I am who I am and that I am an American citizen. Why would anyone oppose that?
That is exactly what we need, a National ID card. You don't have one you can't work here or rent a place to live here. Employers and renters caught hiring or renting to illegal immigrants get massive fines. When there is no work and no place to live they will go home. Then we can let in the number of workers we need with temporary worker cards which would be needed to get hired or rent a place to live and would allow us to track them.
I agree. Who opposes this and why?
Anyone who respects personal liberty, concepts of a free society, and believes in limited govt would be opposed to this.

This is so typical of all our "solutions" today. We don't want to offend some group who are obviously causing the vast majority of the problem, but some are just fine with imposing new requirements on EVERYONE to take care of a limited, definable problem. While we're at it, how about a few new bureaucracies and a few hundred billion in more govt to manage all this?

National ID is an idea so offensive to the spirit of being a free American. 50 years ago, we made fun of countries who required their citizens to show their papers for everything they did. Now, because of PC lunacy and for the sake of expediency, we ignore our heritage and gladly accept one more erosion of our freedoms. It begins as a requirement for travel and border crossings, but once started, there will be no end to the necessity of proving your ID at all manner of activities.

In today's world, you have to know that any such ID would include RFID or chipping of some sort. Networks will be able to track your every movement. You think that won't end up in some govt database, just waiting to potentially be used against you?

So we have a problem with 20 million or so illegals, and our solution is to chain all 300+ million Americans to some new, nationally run ID system with God knows what future purposes and potential? Its pretty sad if that's the best idea we can come up with.


sixty8 - 8/6/2010 at 10:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D. It would solve a lot of problems. When I am traveling abroad, I take great comfort in the American passport I carry. I don't mind carrying a card in my wallet to prove I am who I am and that I am an American citizen. Why would anyone oppose that?
That is exactly what we need, a National ID card. You don't have one you can't work here or rent a place to live here. Employers and renters caught hiring or renting to illegal immigrants get massive fines. When there is no work and no place to live they will go home. Then we can let in the number of workers we need with temporary worker cards which would be needed to get hired or rent a place to live and would allow us to track them.
I agree. Who opposes this and why?
Anyone who respects personal liberty, concepts of a free society, and believes in limited govt would be opposed to this.

This is so typical of all our "solutions" today. We don't want to offend some group who are obviously causing the vast majority of the problem, but some are just fine with imposing new requirements on EVERYONE to take care of a limited, definable problem. While we're at it, how about a few new bureaucracies and a few hundred billion in more govt to manage all this?

National ID is an idea so offensive to the spirit of being a free American. 50 years ago, we made fun of countries who required their citizens to show their papers for everything they did. Now, because of PC lunacy and for the sake of expediency, we ignore our heritage and gladly accept one more erosion of our freedoms. It begins as a requirement for travel and border crossings, but once started, there will be no end to the necessity of proving your ID at all manner of activities.

In today's world, you have to know that any such ID would include RFID or chipping of some sort. Networks will be able to track your every movement. You think that won't end up in some govt database, just waiting to potentially be used against you?

So we have a problem with 20 million or so illegals, and our solution is to chain all 300+ million Americans to some new, nationally run ID system with God knows what future purposes and potential? Its pretty sad if that's the best idea we can come up with.


This card wouldn't be shown for everything we do just for hiring and renting or buying property. Everyone keeps saying tighten up the borders and enforce current laws but this hasn't worked and ain't gonna work unless you add massive manpower to the borders or build a Great Wall of China type wall with all kinds of security and who's gonna pay for that.

That sounds a lot harder and more $$$$$$ than doing the ID card thing. Give me a practical way that will work and I'll back off my ID opinion but so far all I see are people saying enforce the current laws.

If they haven't been being enforced throughout the years that is a pretty good indication that they can't be enforced and we need to try something different. You either go after the employers and renters very, very hard which is what the cards would do or the illegals will never leave and more and more and more will keep coming and before you know it half of the friggin' country will be illegals. There will be no going back if we are not already at that point. As long as there are jobs and cheap places to live they will keep invading our country.


er1016 - 8/6/2010 at 11:16 PM

Playing devils advocate ÖÖ It would be more reasonable to expect the legal citizens of an entire country to furnish their personal information (prove whom they are) to obtain a card that says I am indeed a legal citizen, than to ask a person that has been involved in some sort of criminal activity to produce something that proves that they have taken the necessary steps to be come a citizen of this country? Simply for the purposes of not offending a certain ethnic group and because it would be cheaper.


2112 - 8/6/2010 at 11:19 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No one is even remotely suggesting locking up people in long-term detention camps. The vast majority of the country just wants proper immigration standards and laws to be the exclusive method of becoming an American citizen or temporary visa resident (student, worker, whatever). Those who don't follow that process should be dealt with as criminals, just as they are in virtually every other country - including most that lie south of our border.



That sounds nice and all, but, logistically, how does the gov't deport 10-12 million people?
I wouldn't suggest deportment - costs too much and would be impossible in any practical sense.

First; truly secure the borders to stop the continued flow of illegals. Second; improve E-Verify to satisfy that it's accurate to a high-degree, and provide for an efficient system to appeal any questionable results. Third; raise the fines WAY UP (jail time?) on employers who hire illegals, and conduct more workplace raids - not to capture the illegals, but to prosecute the employers.

Then wait about two years. Give these new measures time for many illegals to self-deport, as they will if conditions become difficult or them to find employment.

Only after this process plays out do we implement some kind of path to citizenship for anyone remaining. And even that must include payment of back taxes, fine & penalties, and a generally slow process for those who crossed illegally. Waiting more years for citizenship and paying fines, while employment for them remains difficult, many illegals will continue to self-deport.

At the same time, open up and speed the path to citizenship for the kind of talent and brainpower we really need to grow our economy and build the future. Engineers, mathematicians, scientists - we should be opening the door wide for people who can really add something. It makes no sense that people with no education and no skills are let in by the millions, while high-tech companies are screaming to permit talented foreigners with guaranteed jobs legal entry. Its completely backwards.

Finally - if possible - kill the whole "anchor baby" process once and for all.

Not much to ask, right?


I agree with most of this approach, but you do realize you will have to grow the government a lot to do this, right? Police for raids, government workers to set up a good system for verification, prison guards to keep those bad employers in jail. For someone who wants a smaller government, you sure don't seem to mind increasing the government big time to do this. Are you willing to pay more in taxes to pull this off?


Fujirich - 8/7/2010 at 12:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
No one is even remotely suggesting locking up people in long-term detention camps. The vast majority of the country just wants proper immigration standards and laws to be the exclusive method of becoming an American citizen or temporary visa resident (student, worker, whatever). Those who don't follow that process should be dealt with as criminals, just as they are in virtually every other country - including most that lie south of our border.



That sounds nice and all, but, logistically, how does the gov't deport 10-12 million people?
I wouldn't suggest deportment - costs too much and would be impossible in any practical sense.

First; truly secure the borders to stop the continued flow of illegals. Second; improve E-Verify to satisfy that it's accurate to a high-degree, and provide for an efficient system to appeal any questionable results. Third; raise the fines WAY UP (jail time?) on employers who hire illegals, and conduct more workplace raids - not to capture the illegals, but to prosecute the employers.

Then wait about two years. Give these new measures time for many illegals to self-deport, as they will if conditions become difficult or them to find employment.

Only after this process plays out do we implement some kind of path to citizenship for anyone remaining. And even that must include payment of back taxes, fine & penalties, and a generally slow process for those who crossed illegally. Waiting more years for citizenship and paying fines, while employment for them remains difficult, many illegals will continue to self-deport.

At the same time, open up and speed the path to citizenship for the kind of talent and brainpower we really need to grow our economy and build the future. Engineers, mathematicians, scientists - we should be opening the door wide for people who can really add something. It makes no sense that people with no education and no skills are let in by the millions, while high-tech companies are screaming to permit talented foreigners with guaranteed jobs legal entry. Its completely backwards.

Finally - if possible - kill the whole "anchor baby" process once and for all.

Not much to ask, right?
I agree with most of this approach, but you do realize you will have to grow the government a lot to do this, right? Police for raids, government workers to set up a good system for verification, prison guards to keep those bad employers in jail. For someone who wants a smaller government, you sure don't seem to mind increasing the government big time to do this. Are you willing to pay more in taxes to pull this off?
Actually, everything to do this already exists. The Obama administration has increased the number of workplace raids, and they tout this as being more effective than what was done before. E-Verify is online today, but critics say it could use some improvement. Fine, do so. Few employers are going to risk fines and/or jail if the penalties are raised to such levels. The two factors that would change from today's status are: higher fines on employers who have illegals working for them, and securing the border.

For those saying that securing the border would be costly; do we have a choice? We're spending hundreds of billions already on a beefed-up security infrastructure in and around Washington (all the stuff the Washington Post recently exposed), but we have a southern border letting millions walk through untouched. Talk about schizophrenic govt! We can track the activities of some lone mullah half way around the world, and dispatch him into eternity with multimillion dollar drones, but we can't secure our own borders? Sounds a little crazy, doesn't it? Or misplaced expenditures, at a minimum.

We don't need more govt to secure our borders. Just one who takes its core priorities more seriously.


dougrhon - 8/7/2010 at 02:55 AM

quote:
No thanks on a massive government electronic database with enough information to prove who every person in the United States is (and enough information to differentiate them). It's way to much central information and power in the hands of the central government. There are ways to solve our illegal immigration problem without a national ID card.


They already have this data. The card would just be an easy and simple way to prove it to potential employers and the like.


SantaCruzBluz - 8/7/2010 at 03:57 AM

I have a driver's license with my address on it, which I am required to update within 30 days of moving. Anyone can run a credit check on me and find out where I've lived for the past 20 years, and anything they want to know about my financial status. I have a social security card which I have to show to get a job, or do a lot of other things. I have a passport to prove who I am if i leave the country. The government already has files on all my information. I couldn't care less about whatever "personal liberties" i might lose if I carried another ID card.


SquatchTexas - 8/7/2010 at 04:05 AM

quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


SantaCruzBluz - 8/7/2010 at 04:09 AM

quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?


Fujirich - 8/7/2010 at 06:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.
Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?
One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?
Too bad the stimulus had so little infrastructure spending in it. This is a project that would help many in the construction trades. Think you could tear yourself away from the beautiful CA coast for a while SCB? I'm with you, I wanna see this sucker from orbit, just like the Great Wall in China.

But since that won't happen, I'll settle for a more aggressive border patrol (national guard or military if necessary) in the areas most abused currently. We could tighten down considerably with just more man power. Then, do two other things...

-- Raise the penalties for hiring illegals way up, and

-- Make marijuana use legal in the US only if produced here within established guidelines (just like alcohol has standards that must be met and maintained). Remove the profit incentive away from Mexican criminals who use illegal immigration as a transport system for their product. It would reduce illegal traffic, take billions from the Mexican cartels currently used to fund the war they're fighting in their own country, it would give our farmers a new crop and profit source, and create sorely needed new jobs and taxes. Only US-produced product is legal to sell here, but we'd happily export to anyone who wants to buy. Heck, use a portion of the tax collected to fund more border security.

I wonder what Mexican President Felipe Calderon would lecture us about then...


2112 - 8/7/2010 at 06:58 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?


Nope. Won't work. They'd tunnel under it. Or they'd figure a way over it. Plus we'd have to build one on the northern border to keep those annoying Canadians out. Especially those French Canadians - since they don't speak English and all.


sixty8 - 8/7/2010 at 08:08 AM

quote:
Playing devils advocate ÖÖ It would be more reasonable to expect the legal citizens of an entire country to furnish their personal information (prove whom they are) to obtain a card that says I am indeed a legal citizen, than to ask a person that has been involved in some sort of criminal activity to produce something that proves that they have taken the necessary steps to be come a citizen of this country? Simply for the purposes of not offending a certain ethnic group and because it would be cheaper.




Your idea is great if all you want to do is get rid of the illegal immigrants involved in criminal activity which is probably a small percentage of them. The card would be to get rid of most or all of them. If you can't get a card you can't work or rent anywhere in the US. Any employers or renters caught hiring or renting to illegals get massive fines. No work or places to live cheaply and they will go home on their own.


sixty8 - 8/7/2010 at 08:16 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?


I don't care what you put on top of it, 10 feet high ain't gonna stop anyone. You wanna really stop someone with a wall you gotta build it big, thick, and tough. Something made out of stone, brick, or concrete very tall with layers of razor wire on each side along with human patrols. All of this other bull$hit with the small fences and sensors and such are nothing but a huge waste of time and $$$$$ as illegals keep pouring over the border every day. If you wanna stop them with a fence or wall you gotta go big or go home IMO.


BIGV - 8/7/2010 at 10:11 AM

quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


As the Natl. Guard is brought home from the Mid-East...Deploy them on the border.


SquatchTexas - 8/7/2010 at 10:30 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?


I would suggest; Not in a million years. We already have fence along a good portion of the border and its tunneled under, gotten around, gotten over. etc. My point in asking the question was to point out that its going to be impossible to 'secure' 2000 miles of border, some of which is in some very rugged country. The only way you could have a good shot at doing it would be to have an armed sentry about every 1/4 mile or less and then you still have the issue of them tunneling, smuggling etc.


dougrhon - 8/7/2010 at 03:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?


I don't care what you put on top of it, 10 feet high ain't gonna stop anyone. You wanna really stop someone with a wall you gotta build it big, thick, and tough. Something made out of stone, brick, or concrete very tall with layers of razor wire on each side along with human patrols. All of this other bull$hit with the small fences and sensors and such are nothing but a huge waste of time and $$$$$ as illegals keep pouring over the border every day. If you wanna stop them with a fence or wall you gotta go big or go home IMO.


Plus open border advocates oppose a fence anyway. Because in reality they do not want illegal Mexican immigration stopped.


mainebigdog - 8/7/2010 at 04:30 PM

will this convince anyone to enforce immigration law?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/virginia-official-calls-congress -subpoena-ice-records/?test=latestnews


goldtop - 8/7/2010 at 04:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


One long ass fence. And hire native-born Americans to build it. Concrete from one end to the other, 10 feet tall. Broken glass embedded in the top of it, just like back home. Constantina wire on top of that. Wouldn't that do the job?


The great wall of Calizonaxas


Fujirich - 8/7/2010 at 06:11 PM

quote:
will this convince anyone to enforce immigration law?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/virginia-official-calls-congress -subpoena-ice-records/?test=latestnews
Can't be true if its from Fox.


2112 - 8/7/2010 at 07:51 PM

Well, I like the spin that implies that it is all Obama's fault. Yup, immigration laws were enforced so well before he took office. Yup, fair and balanced...


mainebigdog - 8/7/2010 at 07:53 PM

quote:
quote:
will this convince anyone to enforce immigration law?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/virginia-official-calls-congress -subpoena-ice-records/?test=latestnews
Can't be true if its from Fox.


do you believe cbs?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20012650-504083.html


Fujirich - 8/7/2010 at 09:22 PM

quote:
Anyway the fact that the Nuns are against him, which gets buried in the last paragraph, is kind of the icing on this turd sandwich of a story.
The nuns are for forgiveness because, well..., they're nuns. That's what they're about. I'd think even they would admit they're not the ideal folks to administer criminal justice.

Disregarding who let who free, there is validity in examining the policy regarding repeat offenders to ensure that they are being dealt with properly. If they are not being deported or dealt with in a proper criminal sense, we should make sure they will be in the future. This isn't a party issue.


Bhawk - 8/7/2010 at 09:27 PM

quote:
This isn't a party issue.


Everything is a party issue.


mainebigdog - 8/7/2010 at 10:28 PM

did anyone read the story that was on the cbs news link i posted?..it says basically the same thing as the fox story..since when is cbs anti-liberal or anti-obama? of course they're not..they actually reported something of substance for a change..unbelievable


MundeleinHoward - 8/7/2010 at 10:56 PM

quote:
did anyone read the story that was on the cbs news link i posted?..it says basically the same thing as the fox story..since when is cbs anti-liberal or anti-obama? of course they're not..they actually reported something of substance for a change..unbelievable


Yes, but CBS didn't quote Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County, Va., board of supervisors & his anti-Obama rant which Faux (Fairly Unbalanced) News did. CBS reported that it was 2008 when the drunken driver was handed over to ICE, which Faux didn't. 2008 was the year Obama was elected & before he took office, so how is that his fault?


Fujirich - 8/8/2010 at 12:31 AM

quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.
Everything is a party issue.
Ironic, isn't it, since the two parties almost always end up in nearly the same place after all is said and done? What a waste; all the D & R circus...


mainebigdog - 8/8/2010 at 01:49 AM

quote:
quote:
Well, I like the spin that implies that it is all Obama's fault. Yup, immigration laws were enforced so well before he took office. Yup, fair and balanced...


Yeah, I thought that was especially absurd given the fact that the man's DUIs and his release both occured before Obama even took office. Here's the exact quote from the esteemed and always highly news-worthy "chairman of the Prince William County, Va., board of supervisors:"

"I want the Obama administration to come clean with the American people about its policy of releasing illegal aliens who localities and other law enforcement officials have identified as illegal aliens who have committed crimes, and the Obama administration is simply turning around and releasing these dangerous individuals back into neighborhoods,"

Come clean, Obama administration, about your policy of allowing the Bush administration to release immigrants facing criminal charges on their own recognizance!

Anyway the fact that the Nuns are against him, which gets buried in the last paragraph, is kind of the icing on this turd sandwich of a story.


blame bush again..why wasn't a guy with his criminal record on the top of the list to get thrown out of the country? didn't anyone in the administration do any type of review of the number of non documented that have been convicted of crimes and still in the u.s.?..apparently not..19 months in office wasn't long enough to do this?


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 02:57 AM

quote:
Fun comments on that FOX article btw:

time for a Hispanic oriented version of the Ku Klux Klan to ride these bums out of the country with a chain dragging. Once ought to be enough to send a message to Washington and the other illegals.

GET THESE SLIMY MEXICAN TRESPASSERS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. OBAMA YOU CAN GO WITH THEM SINCE YOU SEEM TO HAVE BONDED SO WELL WITH THEM. YOU TURNCOAT TRAITOR! 12 MILLION IS 1/10TH THE TOTAL POPULATION OF MEXICO YOU BONEHEAD!

Take up arms America and defeat the illegals.

Someone should wait outside a saloon the guy frequents some dark night with a twelve guage..............

All illegals should be put on a massive transport ship, have it placed in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and then used for Trident missle target practice by the U.S.Navy.

This piece of human garbage should be executed. No deportation. Hang him and be done with it.

As we all have guessed, Obama wants to legalize the illegals so that he will instantly attain 14 million guaranteed votes. He has placed his followers into the Supreme Court to pass this legislation because it will eventually end up there. With his Czars and Appointees he has created a 'Parallel Government' which operates above our own and is accountable only to Obama. Then with the change of term limits that he is trying to enact, he will rule forever as Dictator.


Check the comments on Yahoo news. All internet comments sections are filled with nasty commentary.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 02:57 AM

quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.


Everything is a party issue.


Only if people look at it that way. In my opinion most people don't.


skyponydogboy - 8/8/2010 at 03:03 AM

This administration, like all the others, are all about the politics. It's just that this bunch of crooks are on steroids. Even Clinton and Bush did not attain the levels of corrupt disembowelment of the Americna people like obamas cronies.


spacemonkey - 8/8/2010 at 03:10 AM

quote:
This administration, like all the others, are all about the politics. It's just that this bunch of crooks are on steroids. Even Clinton and Bush did not attain the levels of corrupt disembowelment of the Americna people like obamas cronies.



Obama's Chief of Staff was a bag man for Clinton.

Bush had different set of bag men, friends of Cheney.

K street in DC is full of lawyers and bag men for their corporate PACs.

and both parties in congress are in the feeding frenzy for the dollars.


But I don't think Obama has sunk to the level of Cheney awarding no bid contracts to
a company that he owned a big pile of stock options.



[Edited on 8/8/2010 by spacemonkey]


MundeleinHoward - 8/8/2010 at 03:26 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Well, I like the spin that implies that it is all Obama's fault. Yup, immigration laws were enforced so well before he took office. Yup, fair and balanced...


Yeah, I thought that was especially absurd given the fact that the man's DUIs and his release both occured before Obama even took office. Here's the exact quote from the esteemed and always highly news-worthy "chairman of the Prince William County, Va., board of supervisors:"

"I want the Obama administration to come clean with the American people about its policy of releasing illegal aliens who localities and other law enforcement officials have identified as illegal aliens who have committed crimes, and the Obama administration is simply turning around and releasing these dangerous individuals back into neighborhoods,"

Come clean, Obama administration, about your policy of allowing the Bush administration to release immigrants facing criminal charges on their own recognizance!

Anyway the fact that the Nuns are against him, which gets buried in the last paragraph, is kind of the icing on this turd sandwich of a story.


blame bush again..why wasn't a guy with his criminal record on the top of the list to get thrown out of the country? didn't anyone in the administration do any type of review of the number of non documented that have been convicted of crimes and still in the u.s.?..apparently not..19 months in office wasn't long enough to do this?


Apparently when the Bush administration was running ICE, they didn't do any type of review of this non documented drunk driver who had been convicted of crimes and still in the USA for over 2 years, why wasn't he thrown out of the country in 2006? or 2008? (The young man originally from Bolivia has been arrested twice before and charged with drunk driving, and has other arrests for other traffic-related offenses, say police.

As a result of at least one of these offenses, Montano was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and was expected to be deported; however, the Department of Homeland Security released Montano in 2008 pending a review of his case.)


gina - 8/8/2010 at 04:35 AM

quote:
Any 'required' card is an infringment on freedom. No, I am not explaining my opinion.


With the laws we have in place now, we already foreited our freedom. (example: Patriot Act - no due process, the govt.'s right to seize, transport you to foreign lands telling no one what became of you, detain, try you in closed courts, convict, kill you without even letting you have access to a lawyer, the right to dispatch private armed militias on the populace (from the repeal of Posse Commitatus) etc.


gina - 8/8/2010 at 04:36 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D.



Isn't that now commonly referred to as a Driver's License?



Or social security number?


They'll probably just barcode people with that.


gina - 8/8/2010 at 04:36 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with a national I.D.



Isn't that now commonly referred to as a Driver's License?



Not everyone drives.


"Pony Boy carry me home!"


gina - 8/8/2010 at 04:39 AM

quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


You don't have to, once they find out they have to work like slaves, taxes are taken from their pay, and no matter what they do they will always be in debt, they'll probably opt out and go home.


gina - 8/8/2010 at 04:41 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


As the Natl. Guard is brought home from the Mid-East...Deploy them on the border.


When people develop post traumatic stress disorder and have to leave their combat roles but still have time left to serve, just send them down to do border patrol. No immigrant will want to deal with a ptsd American.


Bhawk - 8/8/2010 at 02:29 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.


Everything is a party issue.


Only if people look at it that way. In my opinion most people don't.


You must not read most opinions.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 02:54 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.


Everything is a party issue.


Only if people look at it that way. In my opinion most people don't.


You must not read most opinions.


Au contraire. Most people live their lives and are not obsessed with this stuff. The majority of people no longer strongly identify with a party and don't vote straight party tickets. This is what is known as "inside the beltway" stuff. It has nothing to do with the lives of most Americans. In my opinion.


LUKE - 8/8/2010 at 03:08 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
For starters secure the boarders and enforce the laws on the books......We don't know that they donít work because we have never fully enacted/enforced them.


Question: How do you propose to close a 2000 mile border?


As the Natl. Guard is brought home from the Mid-East...Deploy them on the border.


When people develop post traumatic stress disorder and have to leave their combat roles but still have time left to serve, just send them down to do border patrol. No immigrant will want to deal with a ptsd American.


MAKE MY DAY PUNK


Bhawk - 8/8/2010 at 03:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.


Everything is a party issue.


Only if people look at it that way. In my opinion most people don't.


You must not read most opinions.


Au contraire. Most people live their lives and are not obsessed with this stuff. The majority of people no longer strongly identify with a party and don't vote straight party tickets. This is what is known as "inside the beltway" stuff. It has nothing to do with the lives of most Americans. In my opinion.


Name some issues, domestic or foreign, that weren't addressed by party politics first in the last 20 years.

Do you read comments on the internet? Letters to the editor? Read bumper stickers?

Yesterday my family drove across northern Missouri to pick up a new puppy. On the way, we stopped and had breakfast at a Waffle House. Half the restaurant was talking about Obama. It wasn't flattering.

15 people in a restaurant at 8 am on a Saturday talking about how the socialist is ruining America?

I still think you need to come out to the Midwest sometime. You might take a new view on "most people."


LikeToSmoke - 8/8/2010 at 03:48 PM

A lot of people in favor of this kind of policy are the same one's who have been heard to say they'd like to send all the blacks back to Africa.

Not a very brotherly way of being.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 03:55 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.


Everything is a party issue.


Only if people look at it that way. In my opinion most people don't.


You must not read most opinions.


Au contraire. Most people live their lives and are not obsessed with this stuff. The majority of people no longer strongly identify with a party and don't vote straight party tickets. This is what is known as "inside the beltway" stuff. It has nothing to do with the lives of most Americans. In my opinion.


Name some issues, domestic or foreign, that weren't addressed by party politics first in the last 20 years.

Do you read comments on the internet? Letters to the editor? Read bumper stickers?

Yesterday my family drove across northern Missouri to pick up a new puppy. On the way, we stopped and had breakfast at a Waffle House. Half the restaurant was talking about Obama. It wasn't flattering.

15 people in a restaurant at 8 am on a Saturday talking about how the socialist is ruining America?

I still think you need to come out to the Midwest sometime. You might take a new view on "most people."


What about the fifty people who weren't discussing it? We are not going to agree on this issue. I believe the majority of people are a silent majority (many don't even vote unfortunately) who have no interest in Revolution, Obama, Bush or anything else that goes beyond their personal lives. Nothing will convince me otherwise. And I say that living in a highly politicized city among very politicized people. If you are basing your view on internet comments then no wonder you feel this way. That is not a representative sample of the 300 million people who are American citizens.

Incidentally I am not saying that the politicians aren't operating based on party politics. I am just saying that the majority of the population doesn't think that way. The mere fact that Obama was elected so easily and his popularity has so quickly tanked is evidence that people's opinions are fluid and not rigidly based on party politics. Of course some states are set but a lot are not. Many of those like Ohio and Missouri for example, are in the mid west.


alloak41 - 8/8/2010 at 04:18 PM

quote:
A lot of people in favor of this kind of policy are the same one's who have been heard to say they'd like to send all the blacks back to Africa.


I haven't heard anybody say that and I live in one of the most racist (supposedly) places in the world. Haven't heard it one time.


LikeToSmoke - 8/8/2010 at 04:23 PM

I've heard it all throughout my life. They say to put them back on the boat.


LikeToSmoke - 8/8/2010 at 04:29 PM

They asked the Supreme Wizard of the KKK who they hate the most. The answer was: the darker the skin color, the more they are hated but Jews are at the top of the list.

They definitely hate Mexicans, but not as much as blacks or Jews.


LikeToSmoke - 8/8/2010 at 04:50 PM

quote:


I haven't heard anybody say that and I live in one of the most racist (supposedly) places in the world. Haven't heard it one time.


They even say it about our President:

http://www.drudge.com/archive/132148/tancredo-send-obama-back-kenya


sixty8 - 8/8/2010 at 05:56 PM

Lou, I hear what you are saying and have heard that plenty myself through the years but I think it's two different things. We brought the black people here and made them slaves, they didn't come here illegally of their own will. Any immigrants here ILLEGALLY should be sent packing regardless of color including any white illegal immigrants. This shouldn't be to single out any one race of people. It is a matter of law and the fact that our country can't continue to support all of these extra people who use up our resources especially in these economic times.

If you aren't gonna send illegals back when you find them why bother having any immigration laws??? Just let them all come here if they want and see how that works out.


Fujirich - 8/8/2010 at 06:05 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This isn't a party issue.
Everything is a party issue.
Only if people look at it that way. In my opinion most people don't.
You must not read most opinions.
Au contraire. Most people live their lives and are not obsessed with this stuff. The majority of people no longer strongly identify with a party and don't vote straight party tickets. This is what is known as "inside the beltway" stuff. It has nothing to do with the lives of most Americans. In my opinion.
Name some issues, domestic or foreign, that weren't addressed by party politics first in the last 20 years.

Do you read comments on the internet? Letters to the editor? Read bumper stickers?

Yesterday my family drove across northern Missouri to pick up a new puppy. On the way, we stopped and had breakfast at a Waffle House. Half the restaurant was talking about Obama. It wasn't flattering.

15 people in a restaurant at 8 am on a Saturday talking about how the socialist is ruining America?

I still think you need to come out to the Midwest sometime. You might take a new view on "most people."
How does dislike for Obama and his policies automatically translate into party alignment? I'll bet many of those same people would be happy to have Clinton (either one) as President versus Obama.

I think Doug has a point about strict party alignment being a stronger factor only as you get to political junkies and inside-the-beltway types. While I wouldn't deny that there is more polarization based on party currently than we've seen in the last 30-40 years, that comes and goes over time. But more immediate judgements about the performance of a particular politician, as deemed by average folks, has much more to do with that politician's specific policies and achievements versus than party.

Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


alloak41 - 8/8/2010 at 06:36 PM

quote:
It's worked out pretty well for the last 250+ years, not sure what exactly has changed since then.


It changed considerably in 1965..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395


Dinahmoehumm - 8/8/2010 at 06:54 PM

quote:
Immigrants from all nations have always been welcome in the USA. It's the
one's that are ILLEGAL that pose the problem. What's so hard to understand?
This racial profiling is just a bunch of crap from the left. I suggest to all to read the bills, both State (AZ) and Federal and see for yourself.
It is about votes as far as obama is concerned. Regardless of hoe much it costs the states/taxpayers. That in itself is a sad, anti-American position to take. The immigrants I come into contact with on a daily basis are against illegals as much as I am. Thsi nation will not stand with this invasion.


Right on, right on! Skydogponyboy is a billion percent correct. That's levitation holmes!


LUKE - 8/8/2010 at 08:18 PM

Screw the borders!Take away the border patrol,tear down any fences & let em flood the country by the 10's of millions.What the hell,we can afford it can't we?I mean is a few more trillion dollars of debt such a big deal?Do away with green cards,visa's etc.Just make it to where if ya wanna come here,well dammit come on.We'll feed ya,clothe ya,send your kids to school,give ya medical treatment & abortions free of charge,help ya on your rent & pay your taxes as well.


SquatchTexas - 8/8/2010 at 08:24 PM

quote:
Screw the borders!Take away the border patrol,tear down any fences & let em flood the country by the 10's of millions.What the hell,we can afford it can't we?I mean is a few more trillion dollars of debt such a big deal?Do away with green cards,visa's etc.Just make it to where if ya wanna come here,well dammit come on.We'll feed ya,clothe ya,send your kids to school,give ya medical treatment & abortions free of charge,help ya on your rent & pay your taxes as well.


Derp. Derpa derpity derp? Derp, duh hur ur hur de dur!


Fujirich - 8/8/2010 at 08:46 PM

quote:
I seriously doubt that - on the whole people are pleased with health care reform, that's why you don't even hear the GOP trumpeting repeal anymore - because they realize that taking benefits away from citizens and undoing the gains of the current administration will not play well in an election cycle.
Pleased? That's a hoot - they never were to begin with. Recent polls would greatly disagree with your assertion about Obamacare, and overall the trend continues negative...

Rassmusen...
quote:
Voter pessimism towards the new national health care bill has reached an all-time high, while the number of insured voters who feel it will force them to switch their coverage is up 11 points from early last month.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters say the recently passed health care law will be bad for the country. Thatís the highest level of pessimism measured since regular tracking began following Congress' passage of the law in late March. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the health care plan will be good for the United States.

More - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/heal thcare/health_care_law


Real Clear Politics shows the average of all polls at 52% oppose, 37% favor. The numbers float a little from month to month, but overall the averages hover in the mid-50's against, and the high 30's for. Its not growing in favor by any broad measure.


Republicans don't have to talk about repeal when numerous actions are underway. More than 20 states are at various stages of rebelling against it. It will end up being decided in the courts, so why waste time talking about repeal. The movement is already well under way...

quote:
States Rebelling Against ObamaCare

Democracy is breaking out all over the country, and some in Washington don't like it one little bit.

The latest example occurred in Missouri Tuesday, where more than 70% of voters rejected ObamaCare. Actually what they did was pass Proposition C, which declares that the federal government cannot tell Missourians they must have health insurance or pay a fine if they don't. That mandate to have health insurance is one of the most controversial provisions in ObamaCare.

When President Obama and the Democratic leadership pushed through the health care reform bill last March, a number of Democrats--along with virtually every Republican--questioned the wisdom of passing a bill so widely unpopular with the public, as evidenced by the unprecedented number of angry voters protesting the legislation at town hall meetings last August.

But Obama ignored those protests and the polls and reassured wavering Democrats that once the bill passed, it would drop off the front pages and the voters' radar screen. Well the health care reform pot continues to boil, with stories--often negative--appearing almost daily.

The Rasmussen polling company has tracked the public's opposition to ObamaCare since the bill passed, and has consistently found 55% to 60% want it repealed. But the public has been ignored, even dismissed, so it's turning that opposition into political action.

The Associated Press said the Missouri vote on Tuesday amounted to "the largest-ever public opinion poll on the nation's new health care law." State Sen. Jane Cunningham, who sponsored the bill, says, "Citizens in our bellwether 'Show-Me' state are energized not only because they're working to preserve their own rights, but they feel they are fighting for Americans all over the country whose voices have been ignored by Congress and Obama."

Currently there are two different efforts afoot for overthrowing ObamaCare, one on constitutional grounds and the other a state rejection of the law.

First, some 20 states, led by Florida Attorney Gen. Bill McCollum--and recently joined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing some 350,000 small businesses--have filed suit against ObamaCare, claiming that the legislation is unconstitutional. They say the federal government has no authority to require people to buy health coverage, plus the law imposes numerous financial hardships on the states.

In addition, Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli has filed a separate lawsuit, as has Missouri Lieutenant Gov. Peter Kinder. On Monday a federal judge denied the Obama administration's request to dismiss the Virginia lawsuit, declaring, "Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America."

Second, state legislatures are taking action. Five of them--Virginia, Idaho, Arizona, Georgia and Louisiana--have passed versions of what's known as the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which is similar to Missouri's Prop C, and sponsored by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an association of state legislators.

Two more states, Oklahoma and Florida, passed the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, but it was vetoed by their (Democratic and Independent, respectively) governors. Missouri's Tuesday vote was different in that the public, not members of the state legislature, voted for the legislation.

This may be just the beginning. Many state legislatures didn't meet this year, so 38 states have filed, prefiled or announced their intent to file similar legislation, meaning 2011 may be dominated by states challenging ObamaCare.

Constitutional law professors I've talked to doubt that the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act can withstand a Supreme Court challenge. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution gives federal law precedent over state law--when the feds are acting constitutionally. And that's why the attorneys' general Tenth Amendment challenge on ObamaCare's constitutionality is so important.

Even so, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act demonstrates the popular will. If the majority of states are fighting ObamaCare, that says the public doesn't want what Obama is selling.

Politicians may ignore some of the voters some of the time, but they can't ignore most of the voters all of the time. And that's exactly what the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership have been doing.

The good news is that their actions have ignited an explosion of interest in the Constitution, the limits of federal power and the political process. That's good for the democratic process, but it can be very bad for those who refuse to listen to the voters.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/06/obamacare-missouri-mandate-opinions-column ists-merrill-matthews.html



sixty8 - 8/8/2010 at 08:52 PM

quote:
quote:
Screw the borders!Take away the border patrol,tear down any fences & let em flood the country by the 10's of millions.What the hell,we can afford it can't we?I mean is a few more trillion dollars of debt such a big deal?Do away with green cards,visa's etc.Just make it to where if ya wanna come here,well dammit come on.We'll feed ya,clothe ya,send your kids to school,give ya medical treatment & abortions free of charge,help ya on your rent & pay your taxes as well.


Derp. Derpa derpity derp? Derp, duh hur ur hur de dur!


ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Bhawk - 8/8/2010 at 09:49 PM

quote:
What about the fifty people who weren't discussing it? We are not going to agree on this issue. I believe the majority of people are a silent majority (many don't even vote unfortunately) who have no interest in Revolution, Obama, Bush or anything else that goes beyond their personal lives. Nothing will convince me otherwise. And I say that living in a highly politicized city among very politicized people. If you are basing your view on internet comments then no wonder you feel this way. That is not a representative sample of the 300 million people who are American citizens.



I base my view mostly on talking to people, actually. Add everything else in.

quote:
Incidentally I am not saying that the politicians aren't operating based on party politics. I am just saying that the majority of the population doesn't think that way. The mere fact that Obama was elected so easily and his popularity has so quickly tanked is evidence that people's opinions are fluid and not rigidly based on party politics. Of course some states are set but a lot are not. Many of those like Ohio and Missouri for example, are in the mid west.


I, however, blame the fickleness and instant gratification need. None of the issues were going to be solved immediately regardless of who was President.


Bhawk - 8/8/2010 at 10:00 PM

quote:
How does dislike for Obama and his policies automatically translate into party alignment? I'll bet many of those same people would be happy to have Clinton (either one) as President versus Obama.



I'll bet all of those people voted for McCain and have been pissed off that Obama got elected from the get go. In the context of the conversation, I'll go even further and bet that not one of those folks could explain exactly what socialism is.

quote:
I think Doug has a point about strict party alignment being a stronger factor only as you get to political junkies and inside-the-beltway types. While I wouldn't deny that there is more polarization based on party currently than we've seen in the last 30-40 years, that comes and goes over time. But more immediate judgements about the performance of a particular politician, as deemed by average folks, has much more to do with that politician's specific policies and achievements versus than party.



Liberal = Democrat

Conservative = Republican

Everything stems from that.

quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare. In the same week, the Administration took action to crack down on Medicare fraud, but no one gave a $hit about that.

It seems to me that both you and Doug have blinders on when it comes to the effect of extremist populism. It works.

You really think that things like birth certificates and Islamic upbringing and closet Marxist don't have an effect on how people view said policies? C'mon now.

The GOP has unanimously opposed every single piece of major legislation, appointments, everything. Oh, yes, people oppose policies, all right. All of them. Even I don't think that everything every Republican President has ever done is bad. However...

In the end, the GOP will probably take Congress back and single-handedly save the country and restore it to former glory. Within two of three days everything about this long national nightmare will be reversed. I'm sure you're very confident in that happening...


alloak41 - 8/8/2010 at 10:58 PM

quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 11:15 PM

quote:
quote:
How does dislike for Obama and his policies automatically translate into party alignment?


Really?

quote:
I'll bet many of those same people would be happy to have Clinton (either one) as President versus Obama.


These people actually had their chance to elect Hilary, not that long ago, and they chose Obama. So did I. No regrets here.

quote:
I think Doug has a point about strict party alignment being a stronger factor only as you get to political junkies and inside-the-beltway types. While I wouldn't deny that there is more polarization based on party currently than we've seen in the last 30-40 years, that comes and goes over time. But more immediate judgements about the performance of a particular politician, as deemed by average folks, has much more to do with that politician's specific policies and achievements versus than party.


Average folks don't have the slightest clue about the specific policies and achievements of any politicians. They identify with a party and they tend to vote with that party for the long haul. It is a distinct minority of voters who choose candidates based on policy.

quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


I seriously doubt that - on the whole people are pleased with health care reform, that's why you don't even hear the GOP trumpeting repeal anymore - because they realize that taking benefits away from citizens and undoing t

he gains of the current administration will not play well in an election cycle.


I think you are kidding yourself. Check this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_ca re_plan-1130.html

There are many more independents than you acknowledge and, particularly where they are situated, they pretty much determine every national election:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/par tisan_trends

Furthermore, many people, especially in one party cities like New York, are registered to one party but vote independently. (I fall into that category) You might note that New York State elected a Republican governor 12 straight years and New York City has not elected a Democrat since 1989 despite a humongous Democratic registration lead.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 11:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Immigrants from all nations have always been welcome in the USA. It's the
one's that are ILLEGAL that pose the problem. What's so hard to understand?
This racial profiling is just a bunch of crap from the left. I suggest to all to read the bills, both State (AZ) and Federal and see for yourself.
It is about votes as far as obama is concerned. Regardless of hoe much it costs the states/taxpayers. That in itself is a sad, anti-American position to take. The immigrants I come into contact with on a daily basis are against illegals as much as I am. Thsi nation will not stand with this invasion.


Right on, right on! Skydogponyboy is a billion percent correct. That's levitation holmes!


This is what the open borders advocates do. They try to shame those opposed to illegal immigration by conflating illegal immigrants with legal immigrants. If you oppose illegal immigration then you are an anti-immigrant xenophobe. It's not fooling anybody.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 11:18 PM

quote:
quote:
What about the fifty people who weren't discussing it? We are not going to agree on this issue. I believe the majority of people are a silent majority (many don't even vote unfortunately) who have no interest in Revolution, Obama, Bush or anything else that goes beyond their personal lives. Nothing will convince me otherwise. And I say that living in a highly politicized city among very politicized people. If you are basing your view on internet comments then no wonder you feel this way. That is not a representative sample of the 300 million people who are American citizens.



I base my view mostly on talking to people, actually. Add everything else in.

quote:
Incidentally I am not saying that the politicians aren't operating based on party politics. I am just saying that the majority of the population doesn't think that way. The mere fact that Obama was elected so easily and his popularity has so quickly tanked is evidence that people's opinions are fluid and not rigidly based on party politics. Of course some states are set but a lot are not. Many of those like Ohio and Missouri for example, are in the mid west.


I, however, blame the fickleness and instant gratification need. None of the issues were going to be solved immediately regardless of who was President.


This last one you have a point. And our political class which should know better (both right and left) feed into it and make it worse by pandering.


er1016 - 8/8/2010 at 11:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Immigrants from all nations have always been welcome in the USA. It's the
one's that are ILLEGAL that pose the problem. What's so hard to understand?
This racial profiling is just a bunch of crap from the left. I suggest to all to read the bills, both State (AZ) and Federal and see for yourself.
It is about votes as far as obama is concerned. Regardless of hoe much it costs the states/taxpayers. That in itself is a sad, anti-American position to take. The immigrants I come into contact with on a daily basis are against illegals as much as I am. Thsi nation will not stand with this invasion.


Right on, right on! Skydogponyboy is a billion percent correct. That's levitation holmes!


This is what the open borders advocates do. They try to shame those opposed to illegal immigration by conflating illegal immigrants with legal immigrants. If you oppose illegal immigration then you are an anti-immigrant xenophobe. It's not fooling anybody.


Word


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 11:21 PM

quote:
quote:
How does dislike for Obama and his policies automatically translate into party alignment? I'll bet many of those same people would be happy to have Clinton (either one) as President versus Obama.



I'll bet all of those people voted for McCain and have been pissed off that Obama got elected from the get go. In the context of the conversation, I'll go even further and bet that not one of those folks could explain exactly what socialism is.

quote:
I think Doug has a point about strict party alignment being a stronger factor only as you get to political junkies and inside-the-beltway types. While I wouldn't deny that there is more polarization based on party currently than we've seen in the last 30-40 years, that comes and goes over time. But more immediate judgements about the performance of a particular politician, as deemed by average folks, has much more to do with that politician's specific policies and achievements versus than party.



Liberal = Democrat

Conservative = Republican

Everything stems from that.

quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare. In the same week, the Administration took action to crack down on Medicare fraud, but no one gave a $hit about that.

It seems to me that both you and Doug have blinders on when it comes to the effect of extremist populism. It works.

You really think that things like birth certificates and Islamic upbringing and closet Marxist don't have an effect on how people view said policies? C'mon now.

The GOP has unanimously opposed every single piece of major legislation, appointments, everything. Oh, yes, people oppose policies, all right. All of them. Even I don't think that everything every Republican President has ever done is bad. However...

In the end, the GOP will probably take Congress back and single-handedly save the country and restore it to former glory. Within two of three days everything about this long national nightmare will be reversed. I'm sure you're very confident in that happening...




I mean really if extremist populism worked so well how the hell did Obama get elected? Do you really believe that all the people unhappy with him voted for McCain?
Approval Disapproval
RCP Average 7/13 - 8/7 -- 45.4 49.4 -4.0
Gallup 8/5 - 8/7 1547 A 47 46 +1
Rasmussen Reports 8/5 - 8/7 1500 LV 48 51 -3
USA Today/Gallup 7/27 - 8/1 1208 A 41 53 -12
FOX News 7/27 - 7/28 900 RV 43 50 -7
Reuters/Ipsos 7/22 - 7/25 1075 A 48 48 Tie
CNN/Opinion Research 7/16 - 7/21 1018 A 47 50 -3
Quinnipiac 7/13 - 7/19 2181 RV 44 48

How did he get elected with 53 percent of the vote then?

Talk about blinders. You have one blinder on IMO. The one that blocks an accurate view of the left.


dougrhon - 8/8/2010 at 11:22 PM

quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 12:19 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
How does dislike for Obama and his policies automatically translate into party alignment? I'll bet many of those same people would be happy to have Clinton (either one) as President versus Obama.



I'll bet all of those people voted for McCain and have been pissed off that Obama got elected from the get go. In the context of the conversation, I'll go even further and bet that not one of those folks could explain exactly what socialism is.

quote:
I think Doug has a point about strict party alignment being a stronger factor only as you get to political junkies and inside-the-beltway types. While I wouldn't deny that there is more polarization based on party currently than we've seen in the last 30-40 years, that comes and goes over time. But more immediate judgements about the performance of a particular politician, as deemed by average folks, has much more to do with that politician's specific policies and achievements versus than party.



Liberal = Democrat

Conservative = Republican

Everything stems from that.

quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare. In the same week, the Administration took action to crack down on Medicare fraud, but no one gave a $hit about that.

It seems to me that both you and Doug have blinders on when it comes to the effect of extremist populism. It works.

You really think that things like birth certificates and Islamic upbringing and closet Marxist don't have an effect on how people view said policies? C'mon now.

The GOP has unanimously opposed every single piece of major legislation, appointments, everything. Oh, yes, people oppose policies, all right. All of them. Even I don't think that everything every Republican President has ever done is bad. However...

In the end, the GOP will probably take Congress back and single-handedly save the country and restore it to former glory. Within two of three days everything about this long national nightmare will be reversed. I'm sure you're very confident in that happening...




I mean really if extremist populism worked so well how the hell did Obama get elected? Do you really believe that all the people unhappy with him voted for McCain?
Approval Disapproval
RCP Average 7/13 - 8/7 -- 45.4 49.4 -4.0
Gallup 8/5 - 8/7 1547 A 47 46 +1
Rasmussen Reports 8/5 - 8/7 1500 LV 48 51 -3
USA Today/Gallup 7/27 - 8/1 1208 A 41 53 -12
FOX News 7/27 - 7/28 900 RV 43 50 -7
Reuters/Ipsos 7/22 - 7/25 1075 A 48 48 Tie
CNN/Opinion Research 7/16 - 7/21 1018 A 47 50 -3
Quinnipiac 7/13 - 7/19 2181 RV 44 48

How did he get elected with 53 percent of the vote then?

Talk about blinders. You have one blinder on IMO. The one that blocks an accurate view of the left.


50-50 means that we are as polarized as we have always been.

Oh, I have an accurate view of the left, no matter what you say or think. In reverse, I think, and have for some time, that you are incapable, by choice or otherwise, of holding the right accountable or responsible for...anything. Which is, incidentally, for the most part, how they view themselves.


er1016 - 8/9/2010 at 12:25 AM


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 12:29 AM

quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




So he did. I, personally, have never put much stock in fulfillment of campaign promises as a meter of Presidental performance, be it Democrat or Republican.


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 12:30 AM

quote:



My, that's very clever. Betcha feel pretty smug posting that one, huh?


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 12:36 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


er1016 - 8/9/2010 at 12:51 AM

quote:
quote:



My, that's very clever. Betcha feel pretty smug posting that one, huh?


As a matter of fact I happen to think it was funny. But if the shoe fits.....Be my guest.



[Edited on 8/9/2010 by enlightenrogue1016]


dougrhon - 8/9/2010 at 03:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




So he did. I, personally, have never put much stock in fulfillment of campaign promises as a meter of Presidental performance, be it Democrat or Republican.


Me neither. I happen to think a lot of his policies are wrong but what is clear is that the policies are deeply unpopular. It is one thing to say well he did what was right regardless of the personal cost but people here and I suspect a lot of liberals simply refuse to acknowledge how much his popularity has tanked. The polls I cited do not indicate that nothing has changed. They indicate that if the election were held today he would be on his way to catastrophic defeat. He had 53 percent of the popular vote. That includes of course virtually all the partisan Democratic vote. It also included a large majority of independent voters who make up by the poll I cited ONE THIRD of the population. The country is NOT polarized. It is divided in three between self described Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Why are the independents always ignored? The independents elected Obama and gave him a large majority in Congress. As things stand the same independents are going to wipe out his majority in Congress and if things remain the same in two years will turn him out of office.


dougrhon - 8/9/2010 at 03:02 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


LUKE - 8/9/2010 at 04:08 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:





[Edited on 8/9/2010 by LUKE]


LUKE - 8/9/2010 at 04:08 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:




LUKE - 8/9/2010 at 04:09 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:




Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 01:41 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:



My, that's very clever. Betcha feel pretty smug posting that one, huh?


As a matter of fact I happen to think it was funny. But if the shoe fits.....Be my guest.




If what shoe fits?

Obama has no magical hold on me, I can assure you. Just because I don't join in the I Hate All Things Obama Festival doesn't mean I am under any kind of spell.


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 01:42 PM

quote:
The country is NOT polarized.


Doug, what planet do you live on? It must be nicer than here.


jim - 8/9/2010 at 01:56 PM

quote:
if the shoe fits


One of the worst late era Grateful Dead Phil Lesh songs....EVER!!

Carry on......


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 02:15 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


LUKE - 8/9/2010 at 02:23 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:




michaelsio - 8/9/2010 at 03:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
will this convince anyone to enforce immigration law?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/virginia-official-calls-congress -subpoena-ice-records/?test=latestnews
Can't be true if its from Fox.


do you believe cbs?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20012650-504083.html



This is more like the CBS commies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/08/sunday/main6753876.shtml?tag=cont entBody;featuredPost-PE


dougrhon - 8/9/2010 at 06:49 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.


sixty8 - 8/9/2010 at 07:09 PM


quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.



Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.



Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.



If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.
quote:




There have been recent polls that show people's opinion about the health care reform Obama pushed through is changing. People, especially the elderly are realizing that it is good change and isn't a bad thing as the Republicans tried to paint it as. Many of the fallacies and lies about what the reform entailed are being exposed. No death panels, no end to Medicare, closure of the doughnut hole on prescription drugs and so on and so on. By the time and if the Republicans regain control I predict there will be opposition to repealing health care reform and will only hurt them if they try to repeal it.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by sixty8]


Bhawk - 8/9/2010 at 07:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.


I think are are more than you think. Simple matter of opinion. Not a big deal, really.


dougrhon - 8/9/2010 at 08:36 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.


I think are are more than you think. Simple matter of opinion. Not a big deal, really.


I guess in the end I am more optimistic than you are.


LUKE - 8/9/2010 at 11:11 PM

quote:



Simon Bar Sinister

[Edited on 8/10/2010 by LUKE]


PhotoRon286 - 8/9/2010 at 11:54 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.



Funny, I heard this woman call into rush's show last week say that maybe what we needed was a Civil War to rid the country of the liberal ways of thinking.


Fujirich - 8/10/2010 at 12:44 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.
Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.
Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.
If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.
So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.
Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.
His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.
I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.
I think are are more than you think. Simple matter of opinion. Not a big deal, really.
Having a strong opinion, and even strong dislike, for a particular politician does not automatically equate to hostile intent. What people say, or how they say it, is a far cry from real actions they may or may not take.

What percentage of folks with a liberal mindset are represented by the kook fringe that shows up to violently protest all the G8 & G20 meetings? A tiny portion, I'd wager. Works the other way as well.

Take our President, for example. With all the earnestness he could muster, he told us that we can't keep on spending as if deficits don't matter. Once he got the keys to the vault, his actions have yet to represent his words, and probably never will.

Sorry; couldn't help myself.


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 01:13 AM

quote:
Having a strong opinion, and even strong dislike, for a particular politician does not automatically equate to hostile intent. What people say, or how they say it, is a far cry from real actions they may or may not take.


Do you listen to the radio? Read comments on the net? Listen to people?

quote:
What percentage of folks with a liberal mindset are represented by the kook fringe that shows up to violently protest all the G8 & G20 meetings? A tiny portion, I'd wager. Works the other way as well.



Not even remotely the same thing. At all.

I firmly believe that a lot of people who consider themselves even remotely conservative try very hard to minimize or even deny that other people on their general "side" even exist when it comes to a particular type of behavior or rhetoric. Willful denial, I'd say.


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 01:20 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.



Funny, I heard this woman call into rush's show last week say that maybe what we needed was a Civil War to rid the country of the liberal ways of thinking.


That can't be true. Those people don't exist. Just ask around here.


dougrhon - 8/10/2010 at 02:07 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.



Funny, I heard this woman call into rush's show last week say that maybe what we needed was a Civil War to rid the country of the liberal ways of thinking.


A woman called into Rush? Better call out the National Guard!


dougrhon - 8/10/2010 at 02:08 AM

quote:
quote:
Having a strong opinion, and even strong dislike, for a particular politician does not automatically equate to hostile intent. What people say, or how they say it, is a far cry from real actions they may or may not take.


Do you listen to the radio? Read comments on the net? Listen to people?

quote:
What percentage of folks with a liberal mindset are represented by the kook fringe that shows up to violently protest all the G8 & G20 meetings? A tiny portion, I'd wager. Works the other way as well.



Not even remotely the same thing. At all.

I firmly believe that a lot of people who consider themselves even remotely conservative try very hard to minimize or even deny that other people on their general "side" even exist when it comes to a particular type of behavior or rhetoric. Willful denial, I'd say.



I don't have a "side". This is not a sporting event. I have beliefs and views. I think most people think like this as well. Some don't on all sides but most do.


dougrhon - 8/10/2010 at 02:10 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just look at the recent Missouri vote on Obamacare. A lot of D's had to vote against it for the majority to be so high. I doubt they're disowning the D party - just expressing dislike for a particular policy.


Many of the reasons for people to oppose that policy are actually lies, and it is on the Administration for not doing enough to debunk those lies. People are still talking about death panels and the end of Medicare.


Opposition also comes from the disbelief that Obamacare will lower costs while providing higher quality health care. Nobody believes either one. As a candidate, Mr. Obama stated that individuals would not be forced to purchase health care insurance. He lied.




If we can't even agree on the obvious fact that Obama's popularity and approval has drastically decreased since he was elected we can't agree on anything.


So it has. Happens to a lot of Presidents. There was once a time not too long ago when "staying the course" in the face of opposition was an act to be admired. Must be conditional.

[Edited on 8/9/2010 by Bhawk]


Sure. Let him stay the course. Maybe in two years he will be proven right and then he will be popular again as happened with Reagan. But I doubt it because I think his policies are making things worse. But at least it should be acknowledged that his popularity has collapsed. The best precedent is 1994. But Clinton was at heart a centrist and was able to work effectively with a Republican Congress and rebuild his popularity in 1996. I wonder if Obama will be able to do the same because he is no centrist.


His popularity has waned. Why you are making that such an issue is a mystery to me.

There are people out there that have a deep hatred for Obama, liberals and Democrats. You refuse to acknowledge that in any way, shape or form. Many of them post here and you, Mr. Treat Everyone With Decency, never say a word about that. I continue to wonder why that is, but, I have no control over that.

I know what I see, read and hear. You actually tried to minimize a situation I was actually in the other morning. There was no way in that situation that my wife and I would have identified ourselves as anything resembling Democrats. I'm not so sure we would have made it out of Oak Grove, Missouri unscathed.

Just last week at a family gathering I overheard my brother-in-law say to two of his friends "What do you expect with a n------ in the White House?" Now, is that indicative of all who oppose him or his policies? Of course not. Are they the only people that think that way? Logic would suggest...of course not.

You made the remark that I have blinders on and don't see the left for this or that...Doug, you don't hear the things I hear.


I'll take your word for it. But I STILL don't think it represents anywhere NEAR a significant portion of the country. The most politically committed are often the most fanatical. There were endless quotes from people who hated Bush and Cheney or other conservatives and prayed for their deaths etc. Most people do not feel this way. You seem to think most do. There are 300 million people in this nation. Most are peaceable. We are not on the verge of civil war.



Funny, I heard this woman call into rush's show last week say that maybe what we needed was a Civil War to rid the country of the liberal ways of thinking.


That can't be true. Those people don't exist. Just ask around here.


They exist. Are you happy? They exist. They are not significant. We are not on the verge of civil war. There will not be riots in the streets. But they exist. Left wing nuts exist too. And also people who run their mouth and say stupid things but would NEVER act on those beliefs. That probably describes 99 percent or more of the people like the woman on Limbaugh's show.


alloak41 - 8/10/2010 at 02:18 AM

I'm pretty much mainstream right down the line, just your average conservative. I just do what my militia leaders tell me to do. Try to sqeeze in a tea party or cross burning as time allows. Nothing unusual here.


er1016 - 8/10/2010 at 02:32 AM



[Edited on 8/10/2010 by enlightenrogue1016]


sixty8 - 8/10/2010 at 02:49 AM

quote:
I'm pretty much mainstream right down the line, just your average conservative. I just do what my militia leaders tell me to do. Try to sqeeze in a tea party or cross burning as time allows. Nothing unusual here.



LOL!


er1016 - 8/10/2010 at 02:50 AM

quote:



If what shoe fits?

Obama has no magical hold on me, I can assure you. Just because I don't join in the I Hate All Things Obama Festival doesn't mean I am under any kind of spell.


For someone that isnít under some sort of magical hold, you sure are coming across as such. I donít recall singling anyone out with my post, yet you felt the need to try and belittle me with your comment, you really put me in my place.

IMO this administration has screwed everything that they have touched up. The unemployment stats, the deficit numbers all tell the tale. Healthcare another joke, they in no shape form or fashion attempted to work in a bipartisan manner on this or any other issue. Hell they had to sell/strong arm their on party to get it through. To top it off they still havenít come up with a way to pay for it.

He totally screwed up in the gulf coast region of the U.S., we will be paying for his ineptness for generations to come. But I will give credit where credit is due. He totally circumvented every law there was in shaking down BP. I by no means am showing sympathy to BP but I donít agree with the methods used to get them to pay. You should understand that being the huge supporter of due process that you are.

Next we have the whole Fannie and Freddie Mac deal. Enron got nailed to the cross but not only did they (Fannie and Freddie) get a pass but there back at the table wanting more money and they'll get it. You have Barney Franks that helped case the collapse in the first place is now one of the ones overseeing the restructure of our financial system. What kid of crap is that?


Then there is the immigration BS, you mean to tell me that on one hand they are saying itís ok to provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants and on the other hand weíre going to take you to court for trying to do their job for them. A job that neither side of the isle has felt the need to do in years. But no, it is just my neo-con selfishness that thinks there something wrong with this. Iím sorry but Iím calling **** , all this says is we have taken a stance. We arenít doing a damn thing until it benefits us politically.

I by no means have all the answers but I know when something is fíd up. I am like a whole lot of people in this country, fed up. I have had it with Republicans and Democrats and all of their **** . Until we the citizenry get to a point that we can all agree that things have gone on long enough, nothing is ever going to change. Last but not least, Itís Bushes fault. Bulls&*%, I expect that type of excuse from my kids. But coming from my President is unacceptableÖ.. Own the **** and fix it or at the very least stop digging the damn hole.

Ok, rant over......

[Edited on 8/10/2010 by enlightenrogue1016]


Fujirich - 8/10/2010 at 02:52 AM

quote:
quote:
Having a strong opinion, and even strong dislike, for a particular politician does not automatically equate to hostile intent. What people say, or how they say it, is a far cry from real actions they may or may not take.
Do you listen to the radio? Read comments on the net? Listen to people?
All the time. I easily have more radio listening time than TV, and listen to talk most of the time. I hear a lot of people upset with policies and direction. They associate Obama, Congress, and Democrats with those policies, but almost never do I hear anything more hostile than "we gotta get those people out of office and out of power". They express disbelief for the policies and ideas behind them, but never serious threats of hostility to the people with those beliefs.

And to properly cover the bases, those same conservative talk shows are also filled with people expressing the same frustration with many, many Republicans.

This is politics - not open war.



quote:
quote:
What percentage of folks with a liberal mindset are represented by the kook fringe that shows up to violently protest all the G8 & G20 meetings? A tiny portion, I'd wager. Works the other way as well.
Not even remotely the same thing. At all.

I firmly believe that a lot of people who consider themselves even remotely conservative try very hard to minimize or even deny that other people on their general "side" even exist when it comes to a particular type of behavior or rhetoric. Willful denial, I'd say.

Huh? If they're not the same its only because the degree of difference. In one, we have left-wing extremists in violent protest, destroying private property and fighting with security forces. In the other, you feel insecure because of a little anti-Obama conversation. I respect your judgement to know when you're in potential physical harm, but words are just words. You're conflating them to imply violence just because of a different political opinion. That's a bit over dramatic, don't you think?

And while we're on the subject of political beliefs boiling over into physical expression, just when was the last time an out of control group of conservatives burned and pillaged a city neighborhood?

If conservatives deny others on their "side", it would only be in relation to anyone representing them in any position of actual power or policy formation. Republicans? Give me a break. Most aren't remotely conservative.

Both sides have their broad spectrum of types, from thoughtful to wacko. The mainstream of conservatism no more acknowledges its hate-filled idiots than the liberals do theirs. How many times did Air America, or leftist protesters, call for Bush's death? I don't believe those loonies represent mainstream liberals anymore than racists represent mainstream conservatives. Most folks don't live - and certainly don't act - on the fringes.


fanfrom-71 - 8/10/2010 at 03:24 AM

quote:
Funny, I heard this woman call into rush's show last week say that maybe what we needed was a Civil War to rid the country of the liberal ways of thinking.
Really. Can't have that way of thinking now can we?!


Dictionary.com

Lib-er-al
Ėadjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.


LikeToSmoke - 8/10/2010 at 12:47 PM


When I see the amount of right wing **** s that are behind this thing, it reeks of bigotry. They see it as their chance to stick it to the Mexicans. They'd rather be sticking it to the blacks and Jews, but they'll take what they could get.


hotlantatim - 8/10/2010 at 01:32 PM

We'll get no where in this debate about how to solve our illegal immigration problem as long as one side (or both) says the other are just plain bigots for holding their position (and are there a small minority of bigots on both sides of the position, yes).

As long as you have been arrested for something else, I don't see why it is Constitutionally a problem to find out if the person is a citizen or here legally. And no, I'm not trying to skick it to Mexicans, Jews or Blacks either. Geez.


jim - 8/10/2010 at 01:44 PM

quote:
When I see the amount of right wing **** s that are behind this thing, it reeks of bigotry. They see it as their chance to stick it to the Mexicans. They'd rather be sticking it to the blacks and Jews, but they'll take what they could get.


Do you see the federal law the same way, i.e. sticking it to blacks, jews, mexicans, etc? Its the same law.


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 01:45 PM

quote:
For someone that isnít under some sort of magical hold, you sure are coming across as such. I donít recall singling anyone out with my post, yet you felt the need to try and belittle me with your comment, you really put me in my place.



Your "Hope-nosis" graphic wasn't directed at me? Yeah, right.

quote:
IMO this administration has screwed everything that they have touched up. The unemployment stats, the deficit numbers all tell the tale. Healthcare another joke, they in no shape form or fashion attempted to work in a bipartisan manner on this or any other issue. Hell they had to sell/strong arm their on party to get it through. To top it off they still havenít come up with a way to pay for it.



It takes two to work in a bipartisan manner. "Selling and strong-arming" is the nature of politics. Unemployment - we are coming off an economic expansion that was ultimately based on...nothing. Jobs that once existed don't exist anymore...and won't again. The factors contributing to the hinderances of the recovery go deeper than the last two years. Has the Administration "done enough?" Sure doesn't look like it, but, people are going to have to make up their minds. The people who don't want government involved in anything scream the loudest about the government not getting everyone a job.

quote:
He totally screwed up in the gulf coast region of the U.S., we will be paying for his ineptness for generations to come. But I will give credit where credit is due. He totally circumvented every law there was in shaking down BP. I by no means am showing sympathy to BP but I donít agree with the methods used to get them to pay. You should understand that being the huge supporter of due process that you are.



The escrow account was BP's idea.

quote:
Next we have the whole Fannie and Freddie Mac deal. Enron got nailed to the cross but not only did they (Fannie and Freddie) get a pass but there back at the table wanting more money and they'll get it. You have Barney Franks that helped case the collapse in the first place is now one of the ones overseeing the restructure of our financial system. What kid of crap is that?


I worked extensivley in the subprime mortgage business at the corporate level for five years. When it collapsed, I took some very deep personal financial losses. I know all about what kind of crap it is. You want to blame one guy and two GSEs for all of it, go right ahead. I sure don't.

quote:
We arenít doing a damn thing until it benefits us politically.



That is indeed a deep, deep flaw in our system. However, that's the way it is.

quote:
I by no means have all the answers but I know when something is fíd up. I am like a whole lot of people in this country, fed up. I have had it with Republicans and Democrats and all of their **** . Until we the citizenry get to a point that we can all agree that things have gone on long enough, nothing is ever going to change.


Thing is, what exactly is it that we can all agree upon? What might sound right to you might not sound right to me, and vice versa.

quote:
Last but not least, Itís Bushes fault. Bulls&*%, I expect that type of excuse from my kids. But coming from my President is unacceptableÖ.. Own the **** and fix it or at the very least stop digging the damn hole.



Many people say 9/11 was Clinton's fault. They also say that the real estate collapse was his fault. Is that all BS too?

If Obama doesn't get re-elected, will you hold the same contempt for the next guy who says "It's Obama's fault?"


jim - 8/10/2010 at 01:50 PM

quote:
I worked extensivley in the subprime mortgage business at the corporate level for five years. When it collapsed, I took some very deep personal financial losses. I know all about what kind of crap it is. You want to blame one guy and two GSEs for all of it, go right ahead. I sure don't.


Even though you are in the middle of the country, can I still call you an evil Wall Streeter for your role in the subprime mortgage collapse? And people blame Bush; meanwhile the fox is right here in our own hen house!!!


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 02:06 PM

quote:
All the time. I easily have more radio listening time than TV, and listen to talk most of the time. I hear a lot of people upset with policies and direction. They associate Obama, Congress, and Democrats with those policies, but almost never do I hear anything more hostile than "we gotta get those people out of office and out of power". They express disbelief for the policies and ideas behind them, but never serious threats of hostility to the people with those beliefs.

And to properly cover the bases, those same conservative talk shows are also filled with people expressing the same frustration with many, many Republicans.

This is politics - not open war.



Coulda fooled me.

quote:
Huh? If they're not the same its only because the degree of difference. In one, we have left-wing extremists in violent protest, destroying private property and fighting with security forces. In the other, you feel insecure because of a little anti-Obama conversation. I respect your judgement to know when you're in potential physical harm, but words are just words. You're conflating them to imply violence just because of a different political opinion. That's a bit over dramatic, don't you think?



Not at all.

quote:
If conservatives deny others on their "side", it would only be in relation to anyone representing them in any position of actual power or policy formation. Republicans? Give me a break. Most aren't remotely conservative.



Here's the "we're perfect and all the ills of the world are the fault of liberals" complex again...

quote:
Both sides have their broad spectrum of types, from thoughtful to wacko. The mainstream of conservatism no more acknowledges its hate-filled idiots than the liberals do theirs. How many times did Air America, or leftist protesters, call for Bush's death?


I got in those people's faces when I was volunteering for the Democratic Party. I told many a person that kind of talk was unacceptable.

I certainly never called for his death.
I never called for the tree of liberty to be watered with the blood of tyrants.
I never doubted George Bush's citizenship, therefore doubting his eligibility to be President in the first place.
I never called him a Muslim terrorist with a secret plan to destroy the country.
I never wanted to refuse him from speaking to America's schoolchildren because he might be indoctrinating them into a socialist agenda.
I never doubted his loyalty to his county on a daily basis.
I never accused him of having a secret Black Liberation Theology agenda.
I never accused him of having several gay lovers.
I never accused him of being a socialist, marxist, communist that is a danger to the very well being of the Union.

That's the crap I have issue with. People want to lament the loss of reasoned debate but they want to make s**t like that the forefront of the "debate."

I'm not insecure about anything, Rich. We're all tired of the BS, but it's simply a matter of being sick of different types of it, I guess.

Stepping back, I probably shouldn't even participate in political discussions anymore, because I cannot get a lot of things out of my mind that happened long before anyone had ever even heard about Barack Obama. "Bush-bashing" was tantamount to treason and if that was wrong then, it should be wrong now, but it isn't. I'll never get over being called a traitor for having a different opinion. Never. Ever.


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 02:07 PM

quote:
quote:
I worked extensivley in the subprime mortgage business at the corporate level for five years. When it collapsed, I took some very deep personal financial losses. I know all about what kind of crap it is. You want to blame one guy and two GSEs for all of it, go right ahead. I sure don't.


Even though you are in the middle of the country, can I still call you an evil Wall Streeter for your role in the subprime mortgage collapse? And people blame Bush; meanwhile the fox is right here in our own hen house!!!


Call me evil!

Americans want to blame someone for the real estate collapse and the credit bubble? They can start by looking at each other.


alloak41 - 8/10/2010 at 02:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I worked extensivley in the subprime mortgage business at the corporate level for five years. When it collapsed, I took some very deep personal financial losses. I know all about what kind of crap it is. You want to blame one guy and two GSEs for all of it, go right ahead. I sure don't.


Even though you are in the middle of the country, can I still call you an evil Wall Streeter for your role in the subprime mortgage collapse? And people blame Bush; meanwhile the fox is right here in our own hen house!!!


Call me evil!

Americans want to blame someone for the real estate collapse and the credit bubble? They can start by looking at each other.


Don't look at Armando Falcon.


hotlantatim - 8/10/2010 at 03:01 PM

I agree that it was all of us.

It was all of us including the guy who refinanced his house in 2006 to pay off credit card debts; and the people who took out debt to buy a beach house in addition to their primary; and those who bought houses with 1-5% down so they could afford their car debt despite the time test advice to save 20% for the downpayment of your house. Banks' lending practices and risky portfolio practices contributed obviously. The Federal Rerserve with unnaturally low rates and liberal monetary flow to banks contributed significantly too. Congressional pressure and policies contributed.

Some of us may not have done some of the above but we do elect Congress (who could change the Fed Reserve) so I'm not sure any of us are completely innocent.


er1016 - 8/10/2010 at 04:56 PM

quote:
quote:
For someone that isnít under some sort of magical hold, you sure are coming across as such. I donít recall singling anyone out with my post, yet you felt the need to try and belittle me with your comment, you really put me in my place.



Your "Hope-nosis" graphic wasn't directed at me? Yeah, right.

It was posted for it's comedic value, had I wanted to direct it at you personally I would have posted it along with a quote from you or named you directly.

quote:
IMO this administration has screwed everything that they have touched up. The unemployment stats, the deficit numbers all tell the tale. Healthcare another joke, they in no shape form or fashion attempted to work in a bipartisan manner on this or any other issue. Hell they had to sell/strong arm their on party to get it through. To top it off they still havenít come up with a way to pay for it.



It takes two to work in a bipartisan manner. "Selling and strong-arming" is the nature of politics. Unemployment - we are coming off an economic expansion that was ultimately based on...nothing. Jobs that once existed don't exist anymore...and won't again. The factors contributing to the hinderances of the recovery go deeper than the last two years. Has the Administration "done enough?" Sure doesn't look like it, but, people are going to have to make up their minds. The people who don't want government involved in anything scream the loudest about the government not getting everyone a job.

I agree that it takes both sides in order for there to be a legit bipartisanship effort. But I also know that there are things done on both sides to put the other side in a defensive position. I.E. late night, last minute votes and backroom deals that the other side was not invited to participate. Then there was the whole "we have the super majority, we don't need your help." How would anyone not take exception to that? Yes, strong arming is the nature of politics but the fact that you have to do this to your own party members should be a clue that something isnít right. To me this was the same in principal as when Bush wanted to go to war; they were going to do it regardless of what people wanted. Just so they could say, we did it.

quote:
He totally screwed up in the gulf coast region of the U.S., we will be paying for his ineptness for generations to come. But I will give credit where credit is due. He totally circumvented every law there was in shaking down BP. I by no means am showing sympathy to BP but I donít agree with the methods used to get them to pay. You should understand that being the huge supporter of due process that you are.



The escrow account was BP's idea.

Yeah it was, after they were called to a meeting at the Whitehouse. What choice did they have, the WH had already told them what they were going to do prior to the meeting.....Again not defending BP, just the due process angle. And it was deemed justified because of the circumstances.

quote:
Next we have the whole Fannie and Freddie Mac deal. Enron got nailed to the cross but not only did they (Fannie and Freddie) get a pass but there back at the table wanting more money and they'll get it. You have Barney Franks that helped case the collapse in the first place is now one of the ones overseeing the restructure of our financial system. What kid of crap is that?


I worked extensively in the subprime mortgage business at the corporate level for five years. When it collapsed, I took some very deep personal financial losses. I know all about what kind of crap it is. You want to blame one guy and two GSEs for all of it, go right ahead. I sure don't.

I said Franks helped cause the collapse...Do I think he is solely responsible, of course not. There are a lot of people responsible. The secondary lending market was big business and there were a lot of shady deals taking place, both by consumers and lenders. But do I think that there is a serious conflict of interest having him involved in the restructure, yes I do.

quote:
We arenít doing a damn thing until it benefits us politically.



That is indeed a deep, deep flaw in our system. However, that's the way it is.

I agree, but when it gets to the point that it cripples government, when do we say, ok its time to reboot here?

quote:
I by no means have all the answers but I know when something is fíd up. I am like a whole lot of people in this country, fed up. I have had it with Republicans and Democrats and all of their **** . Until we the citizenry get to a point that we can all agree that things have gone on long enough, nothing is ever going to change.


Thing is, what exactly is it that we can all agree upon? What might sound right to you might not sound right to me, and vice versa.

I understand and I will ask you, do you believe that we as a country have become so polarized that we are not capable of returning to a common ground?

quote:
Last but not least, Itís Bushes fault. Bulls&*%, I expect that type of excuse from my kids. But coming from my President is unacceptableÖ.. Own the **** and fix it or at the very least stop digging the damn hole.



Many people say 9/11 was Clinton's fault. They also say that the real estate collapse was his fault. Is that all BS too?

9/11 was no more Clintons fault than it was Bushes fault. Did bush take advantage of the situation to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't know about advantage but he used it as an excuse, yes.

If Obama doesn't get re-elected, will you hold the same contempt for the next guy who says "It's Obama's fault?"


I expect more from the leader of my country, regardless of their political affiliation.






[Edited on 8/10/2010 by er1016]


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 06:40 PM

quote:
I agree that it takes both sides in order for there to be a legit bipartisanship effort. But I also know that there are things done on both sides to put the other side in a defensive position. I.E. late night, last minute votes and backroom deals that the other side was not invited to participate. Then there was the whole "we have the super majority, we don't need your help." How would anyone not take exception to that? Yes, strong arming is the nature of politics but the fact that you have to do this to your own party members should be a clue that something isnít right. To me this was the same in principal as when Bush wanted to go to war; they were going to do it regardless of what people wanted. Just so they could say, we did it.



Getting people in your party to vote on something isn't new. It just isn't. What changed was the filibuster rules in the Senate.

quote:
Yeah it was, after they were called to a meeting at the Whitehouse. What choice did they have, the WH had already told them what they were going to do prior to the meeting.....Again not defending BP, just the due process angle. And it was deemed justified because of the circumstances.

]

Of course they were called to the White House. Everyone was screaming for Obama to do something. This is an example of purely partisan politics and spin. If a GOP President had done the same thing (which he or she most certainly would have) they would have been showered with praise for taking a tough approach to a tough situation.

quote:
I said Franks helped cause the collapse...Do I think he is solely responsible, of course not. There are a lot of people responsible. The secondary lending market was big business and there were a lot of shady deals taking place, both by consumers and lenders. But do I think that there is a serious conflict of interest having him involved in the restructure, yes I do.



If there are those that support a public hagning of Barney Frank, so be it. Makes no difference to me, really.

quote:
I agree, but when it gets to the point that it cripples government, when do we say, ok its time to reboot here?



Reboot? Reboot to what?

quote:
I understand and I will ask you, do you believe that we as a country have become so polarized that we are not capable of returning to a common ground?



Yes I do. Absolutely. 100% gone, we are, in this regard.

quote:
I expect more from the leader of my country, regardless of their political affiliation.



I used to think like that. Now I think that no one can lead anyone unless they are first willing to be lead. The crux of the matter here is all of the people that believe that Obama isn't even eligible or worthy to be President in the first place. No one can ever convince me that the GOP was ever going to be willing to work with Obama on anything. "I hope he fails," was, is and continues to be their mantra. He had/has no shot at leading that. Is that his fault? The idealist in me says yes, he should be able to overcome that, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can.

We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


alloak41 - 8/10/2010 at 07:05 PM

quote:
We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


That will probably depend on what he's trying to accomplish. If he can garner only 30-40% support for his various agenda items, he'll have a big problem as Obama is finding out.


er1016 - 8/10/2010 at 07:38 PM

quote:

I used to think like that. Now I think that no one can lead anyone unless they are first willing to be lead. The crux of the matter here is all of the people that believe that Obama isn't even eligible or worthy to be President in the first place. No one can ever convince me that the GOP was ever going to be willing to work with Obama on anything. "I hope he fails," was, is and continues to be their mantra. He had/has no shot at leading that. Is that his fault? The idealist in me says yes, he should be able to overcome that, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can.

We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


And I respect your candidness. Youíre correct; no one can lead if people arenít willing to be lead. Although not everything a leader does is going to be popular to the masses, he must be prepared to compromise on some things for the betterment of the whole. Additionally there are ways of doing things that donít alienate the masses as well. I believe this to be Obamaís biggest hurdle and IMO he and this party have done little to prevent this perception.

ďI hope he failís,Ē is a statement made by a far right radio host. Yes, there is a faction of the Republican Party that subscribe to this line of thinking. But to say the entire Republican Party follows this mantra is like saying all Democrats are liberal; left wing socialist, itís not true. I could be wrong but I believe that there are a large majority of both parties that would fall more into the moderate category. And itís this category that the change can be made. Stop letting partisan politics override your principles (common ground). I maybe naive in my line of thinking but to just say, thatís just the way it is doesn't sit well with me.


[Edited on 8/10/2010 by er1016]


hotlantatim - 8/10/2010 at 07:52 PM

Opponents don't hope the President fails and the country suffers. They hope he fails in his attempts to reshape government, and fails to implement specific policies and laws because they believe the country will benefit more if he's unsuccessful in those attempts.

I think people get that, but it's better political talk to claim the opposition party is rooting against their favorite team in hopes that the coach gets fired.

[Edited on 8/10/2010 by hotlantatim]


er1016 - 8/10/2010 at 07:55 PM

quote:
quote:

I used to think like that. Now I think that no one can lead anyone unless they are first willing to be lead. The crux of the matter here is all of the people that believe that Obama isn't even eligible or worthy to be President in the first place. No one can ever convince me that the GOP was ever going to be willing to work with Obama on anything. "I hope he fails," was, is and continues to be their mantra. He had/has no shot at leading that. Is that his fault? The idealist in me says yes, he should be able to overcome that, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can.

We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


And I respect your candidness. Youíre correct; no one can lead if people arenít willing to be lead. Although not everything a leader does is going to be popular to the masses, he must be prepared to compromise on some things for the betterment of the whole. Additionally there are ways of doing things that donít alienate the masses as well. I believe this to be Obamaís biggest hurdle and IMO he, Pelosi and Reid have done little to prevent this perception.

ďI hope he failís,Ē is a statement made by a far right radio host. Yes, there is a faction of the Republican Party that subscribe to this line of thinking. But to say the entire Republican Party follows this mantra is like saying all Democrats are liberal; left wing socialist, itís not true. I could be wrong, but I believe that there are a large majority of both parties that would fall more into the moderate category. And itís this category that bring about change. If they would stop letting partisan politics override your principles (common ground). I maybe naive in my line of thinking but to just say, thatís just the way it is doesn't sit well with me.






[Edited on 8/10/2010 by er1016]


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 08:38 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

I used to think like that. Now I think that no one can lead anyone unless they are first willing to be lead. The crux of the matter here is all of the people that believe that Obama isn't even eligible or worthy to be President in the first place. No one can ever convince me that the GOP was ever going to be willing to work with Obama on anything. "I hope he fails," was, is and continues to be their mantra. He had/has no shot at leading that. Is that his fault? The idealist in me says yes, he should be able to overcome that, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can.

We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


And I respect your candidness. Youíre correct; no one can lead if people arenít willing to be lead. Although not everything a leader does is going to be popular to the masses, he must be prepared to compromise on some things for the betterment of the whole. Additionally there are ways of doing things that donít alienate the masses as well. I believe this to be Obamaís biggest hurdle and IMO he, Pelosi and Reid have done little to prevent this perception.

ďI hope he failís,Ē is a statement made by a far right radio host. Yes, there is a faction of the Republican Party that subscribe to this line of thinking. But to say the entire Republican Party follows this mantra is like saying all Democrats are liberal; left wing socialist, itís not true. I could be wrong, but I believe that there are a large majority of both parties that would fall more into the moderate category. And itís this category that bring about change. If they would stop letting partisan politics override your principles (common ground). I maybe naive in my line of thinking but to just say, thatís just the way it is doesn't sit well with me.



Perhaps. However, the opposition has unanimously opposed every single major piece of legislation. Routine appointments were opposed for over a year. That's pretty solid evidence that the entire GOP is foillowing a failure mantra, IMO.

Hold me to what the Democratic Party does or doesn't do because I identify myself as a Democrat? Fine. I'll gladly do that. I'd just like to find a Republican that would do the same.

See, that's a big part of it. No one wants to admit they may be wrong, or have supported someone that wasn't that, well, good. That's the real reason why people still bring up Bush..."You guys shoved this idiot in our face for eight years, calling us traitors for questioning even the color of tie he had on that day, and you expect people to just forget all that?"

There are these huge disconnnects everywhere. Such as the same person saying...

"Blame Bush. Blame Bush. Blame Bush. That's all you guys do. What about now? Bush is gone. What about now?"

Then, in the same discussion...

"FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, all reckless liberals that did far more damage to this country than good. Their decisions and policies over the years will ultimately wreck this country."

To wit: not only in the first part did the person mock bringing up Bush at all, but it is compounded by not coming close to even entertaining the thought that Bush may be responsible for...anything. It's not that liberals and Democrats blame him for everything, it's that the right blames him for and holds him accountable for absolutely nothing. We can talk about all the past Democratic Presidents and all the damage they did, but W is off limits? So, when those on the right, as they are right now, are just beside themselves, yelling at the left, "What is wrong with you people? Why won't you admit this Obama guy is...(insert whatever)?" They get nothing in return. Nobody is going to actually admit they may have been wrong. Republicans, for a very large part, don't do humility and do not admit they were ever wrong. Democrats, for a very large part, won't forgive or forget the Clinton years and beyond, being called traitors, being blamed for everything.

This is the cycle. I'm not saying that I think it's a good thing, because I'm not and it isn't. But this is where we are.

I live in Kansas. A deeply red state. It is an election year. The candidates on the GOP side are talking about fighting liberals and taking the country back and going to war against the Obama agenda. About blaming liberals for, well, everything. Now, here I am. One guy. One vote. Why would I even think that those people would want my vote? Why would I even think they would even want to be in the same room with me? Why wouldn't I think they hold me and others who agree with me politically in utter contempt? Why would that be on me or any other liberal for coming to those same conclusions?


hotlantatim - 8/10/2010 at 09:10 PM

And the same things are happening in heavily Democratic districts. It's a primary. They aren't trying to govern; they are trying to win a nomination. They are going after partisan votes in a primary, because that's who votes during them...and even more so during primary runoffs.

They'll campaign to kill the agenda of the other side during the general election depending on the party breakdown statewide too, but much less than during a primary.


Bhawk - 8/10/2010 at 09:17 PM

quote:
And the same things are happening in heavily Democratic districts. It's a primary. They aren't trying to govern; they are trying to win a nomination. They are going after partisan votes in a primary, because that's who votes during them...and even more so during primary runoffs.

They'll campaign to kill the agenda of the other side during the general election depending on the party breakdown statewide too, but much less than during a primary.


I realize it's a primary. I've already gotten GOP robocalls for the general. Again, I live in Kansas.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 02:19 AM

quote:
quote:
We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


That will probably depend on what he's trying to accomplish. If he can garner only 30-40% support for his various agenda items, he'll have a big problem as Obama is finding out.


All great leaders, including FDR recognize that in this country you govern by consensus of the majority. You cannot get out too far ahead of public opinion. You can try to influence it but you cannot govern in opposition to it. The constitution protects the civil rights of the minority. But laws are passed by majorities.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 02:20 AM

quote:
quote:

I used to think like that. Now I think that no one can lead anyone unless they are first willing to be lead. The crux of the matter here is all of the people that believe that Obama isn't even eligible or worthy to be President in the first place. No one can ever convince me that the GOP was ever going to be willing to work with Obama on anything. "I hope he fails," was, is and continues to be their mantra. He had/has no shot at leading that. Is that his fault? The idealist in me says yes, he should be able to overcome that, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can.

We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


And I respect your candidness. Youíre correct; no one can lead if people arenít willing to be lead. Although not everything a leader does is going to be popular to the masses, he must be prepared to compromise on some things for the betterment of the whole. Additionally there are ways of doing things that donít alienate the masses as well. I believe this to be Obamaís biggest hurdle and IMO he and this party have done little to prevent this perception.

ďI hope he failís,Ē is a statement made by a far right radio host. Yes, there is a faction of the Republican Party that subscribe to this line of thinking. But to say the entire Republican Party follows this mantra is like saying all Democrats are liberal; left wing socialist, itís not true. I could be wrong but I believe that there are a large majority of both parties that would fall more into the moderate category. And itís this category that the change can be made. Stop letting partisan politics override your principles (common ground). I maybe naive in my line of thinking but to just say, thatís just the way it is doesn't sit well with me.


[Edited on 8/10/2010 by er1016]


You are entirely right. The moderate center is the great silent majority of this country. Leaders forget this at their peril. It was the key to Clinton's success. He understood it well.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 02:22 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

I used to think like that. Now I think that no one can lead anyone unless they are first willing to be lead. The crux of the matter here is all of the people that believe that Obama isn't even eligible or worthy to be President in the first place. No one can ever convince me that the GOP was ever going to be willing to work with Obama on anything. "I hope he fails," was, is and continues to be their mantra. He had/has no shot at leading that. Is that his fault? The idealist in me says yes, he should be able to overcome that, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can.

We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


And I respect your candidness. Youíre correct; no one can lead if people arenít willing to be lead. Although not everything a leader does is going to be popular to the masses, he must be prepared to compromise on some things for the betterment of the whole. Additionally there are ways of doing things that donít alienate the masses as well. I believe this to be Obamaís biggest hurdle and IMO he, Pelosi and Reid have done little to prevent this perception.

ďI hope he failís,Ē is a statement made by a far right radio host. Yes, there is a faction of the Republican Party that subscribe to this line of thinking. But to say the entire Republican Party follows this mantra is like saying all Democrats are liberal; left wing socialist, itís not true. I could be wrong, but I believe that there are a large majority of both parties that would fall more into the moderate category. And itís this category that bring about change. If they would stop letting partisan politics override your principles (common ground). I maybe naive in my line of thinking but to just say, thatís just the way it is doesn't sit well with me.



Perhaps. However, the opposition has unanimously opposed every single major piece of legislation. Routine appointments were opposed for over a year. That's pretty solid evidence that the entire GOP is foillowing a failure mantra, IMO.

Hold me to what the Democratic Party does or doesn't do because I identify myself as a Democrat? Fine. I'll gladly do that. I'd just like to find a Republican that would do the same.

See, that's a big part of it. No one wants to admit they may be wrong, or have supported someone that wasn't that, well, good. That's the real reason why people still bring up Bush..."You guys shoved this idiot in our face for eight years, calling us traitors for questioning even the color of tie he had on that day, and you expect people to just forget all that?"

There are these huge disconnnects everywhere. Such as the same person saying...

"Blame Bush. Blame Bush. Blame Bush. That's all you guys do. What about now? Bush is gone. What about now?"

Then, in the same discussion...

"FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, all reckless liberals that did far more damage to this country than good. Their decisions and policies over the years will ultimately wreck this country."

To wit: not only in the first part did the person mock bringing up Bush at all, but it is compounded by not coming close to even entertaining the thought that Bush may be responsible for...anything. It's not that liberals and Democrats blame him for everything, it's that the right blames him for and holds him accountable for absolutely nothing. We can talk about all the past Democratic Presidents and all the damage they did, but W is off limits? So, when those on the right, as they are right now, are just beside themselves, yelling at the left, "What is wrong with you people? Why won't you admit this Obama guy is...(insert whatever)?" They get nothing in return. Nobody is going to actually admit they may have been wrong. Republicans, for a very large part, don't do humility and do not admit they were ever wrong. Democrats, for a very large part, won't forgive or forget the Clinton years and beyond, being called traitors, being blamed for everything.

This is the cycle. I'm not saying that I think it's a good thing, because I'm not and it isn't. But this is where we are.

I live in Kansas. A deeply red state. It is an election year. The candidates on the GOP side are talking about fighting liberals and taking the country back and going to war against the Obama agenda. About blaming liberals for, well, everything. Now, here I am. One guy. One vote. Why would I even think that those people would want my vote? Why would I even think they would even want to be in the same room with me? Why wouldn't I think they hold me and others who agree with me politically in utter contempt? Why would that be on me or any other liberal for coming to those same conclusions?


I finally figured out your problem. You live in Kansas a deeply red state. It is one of the most right wing states in the union. It's a big country. Maybe you need to observe that the rest of the country isn't quite that polarized. That there is even some civility. You'll feel better. I recommend Missouri. Or Ohio.

[Edited on 8/11/2010 by dougrhon]


er1016 - 8/11/2010 at 02:51 AM

I live in Georgia and although it has been leaning towards the red side for the last several elections, it was better known as a blue state in years past. Personally, I would describe it as more of a moderate state. People tend to gravitate towards the center on things and the candidate that is closest to center wins for the most part.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 02:58 AM

quote:
I live in Georgia and although it has been leaning towards the red side for the last several elections, it was better known as a blue state in years past. Personally, I would describe it as more of a moderate state. People tend to gravitate towards the center on things and the candidate that is closest to center wins for the most part.


True for much of the country. And even in states like New York where the Democrat always wins, there is plenty of mixed support and most people live their lives not obsessing over their hatred of all political opposition.


michaelsio - 8/11/2010 at 10:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


That will probably depend on what he's trying to accomplish. If he can garner only 30-40% support for his various agenda items, he'll have a big problem as Obama is finding out.


All great leaders, including FDR recognize that in this country you govern by consensus of the majority. You cannot get out too far ahead of public opinion. You can try to influence it but you cannot govern in opposition to it. The constitution protects the civil rights of the minority. But laws are passed by majorities.


While that may be true of the House, the US Senate can have a majority representing less than 20% of the US population.

Just something to think about.


michaelsio - 8/11/2010 at 10:54 AM

quote:
I live in Georgia and although it has been leaning towards the red side for the last several elections, it was better known as a blue state in years past. Personally, I would describe it as more of a moderate state. People tend to gravitate towards the center on things and the candidate that is closest to center wins for the most part.


Isn't that mostly because of Atlanta? I live in Pennsylvania and once you're outside of Pittsburgh and Philly, this state is as red as any other republican stronghold.


michaelsio - 8/11/2010 at 10:58 AM

quote:
quote:
And the same things are happening in heavily Democratic districts. It's a primary. They aren't trying to govern; they are trying to win a nomination. They are going after partisan votes in a primary, because that's who votes during them...and even more so during primary runoffs.

They'll campaign to kill the agenda of the other side during the general election depending on the party breakdown statewide too, but much less than during a primary.


I realize it's a primary. I've already gotten GOP robocalls for the general. Again, I live in Kansas.


You ever read "What's Wrong With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank? Pretty interesting book. Leans pretty far to the left, but still has a lot of valid points.


Bhawk - 8/11/2010 at 01:30 PM

quote:
I finally figured out your problem. You live in Kansas a deeply red state. It is one of the most right wing states in the union. It's a big country. Maybe you need to observe that the rest of the country isn't quite that polarized. That there is even some civility. You'll feel better. I recommend Missouri. Or Ohio.



Is that what my problem is?

Good thing we have a moderator now, my initial reaction to that would get me banned.

If you knew anything about Kansas City, you would know that the state line of Kansas and Missouri runs right through town. As a matter of fact, State Line Road (i.e. on the other side of it is the state of Missouri) is about 50 yards east of where I am sitting right now. I've been all over the Midwest, lived in Chicago for 5 years. Last weekend I went deep into the heart of rural Missouri. Saw a lot of anti-Obama billboards and a lot of "take the country" back signage as well. Oh, wait, maybe I didn't, with me having a problem and all.

But, hey, since geographical credibility is now an issue, what about yourself? How often do you make it out of New York? You hit the rural honky-tonks often? Let me guess, every other weekend you hop in the car and play washboard at hoedowns throughout the Poconos and Appalachia?


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 01:44 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
We're in a cycle that we won't break out of. The next Republican President that comes along will be vehemently opposed just because.


That will probably depend on what he's trying to accomplish. If he can garner only 30-40% support for his various agenda items, he'll have a big problem as Obama is finding out.


All great leaders, including FDR recognize that in this country you govern by consensus of the majority. You cannot get out too far ahead of public opinion. You can try to influence it but you cannot govern in opposition to it. The constitution protects the civil rights of the minority. But laws are passed by majorities.


While that may be true of the House, the US Senate can have a majority representing less than 20% of the US population.

Just something to think about.


What I meant is that the government passes unpopular laws at it's peril which is why it rarely does so.


Bhawk - 8/11/2010 at 01:46 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And the same things are happening in heavily Democratic districts. It's a primary. They aren't trying to govern; they are trying to win a nomination. They are going after partisan votes in a primary, because that's who votes during them...and even more so during primary runoffs.

They'll campaign to kill the agenda of the other side during the general election depending on the party breakdown statewide too, but much less than during a primary.


I realize it's a primary. I've already gotten GOP robocalls for the general. Again, I live in Kansas.


You ever read "What's Wrong With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank? Pretty interesting book. Leans pretty far to the left, but still has a lot of valid points.


Yes, I have. Accurate on too many levels.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 01:47 PM

quote:
quote:
I finally figured out your problem. You live in Kansas a deeply red state. It is one of the most right wing states in the union. It's a big country. Maybe you need to observe that the rest of the country isn't quite that polarized. That there is even some civility. You'll feel better. I recommend Missouri. Or Ohio.



Is that what my problem is?

Good thing we have a moderator now, my initial reaction to that would get me banned.

If you knew anything about Kansas City, you would know that the state line of Kansas and Missouri runs right through town. As a matter of fact, State Line Road (i.e. on the other side of it is the state of Missouri) is about 50 yards east of where I am sitting right now. I've been all over the Midwest, lived in Chicago for 5 years. Last weekend I went deep into the heart of rural Missouri. Saw a lot of anti-Obama billboards and a lot of "take the country" back signage as well. Oh, wait, maybe I didn't, with me having a problem and all.

But, hey, since geographical credibility is now an issue, what about yourself? How often do you make it out of New York? You hit the rural honky-tonks often? Let me guess, every other weekend you hop in the car and play washboard at hoedowns throughout the Poconos and Appalachia?


Dude you are way too sensitive. Your the one that constantly talks about all the nut jobs you encounter and says I am in a cocoon of tolerance or something like that. I am suggesting the reverse and you get all offended. Maybe I shouldn't have said "your problem" since you find that offensive. What I meant was that this might be the reason you think the country is on the verge of civil war. Because of where you live. We are just trying to have a conversation here. Maybe we'd better just back off and not speak anymore. I don't want to get you more angry than you already obviously are.

[Edited on 8/11/2010 by dougrhon]


Bhawk - 8/11/2010 at 01:58 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I finally figured out your problem. You live in Kansas a deeply red state. It is one of the most right wing states in the union. It's a big country. Maybe you need to observe that the rest of the country isn't quite that polarized. That there is even some civility. You'll feel better. I recommend Missouri. Or Ohio.



Is that what my problem is?

Good thing we have a moderator now, my initial reaction to that would get me banned.

If you knew anything about Kansas City, you would know that the state line of Kansas and Missouri runs right through town. As a matter of fact, State Line Road (i.e. on the other side of it is the state of Missouri) is about 50 yards east of where I am sitting right now. I've been all over the Midwest, lived in Chicago for 5 years. Last weekend I went deep into the heart of rural Missouri. Saw a lot of anti-Obama billboards and a lot of "take the country" back signage as well. Oh, wait, maybe I didn't, with me having a problem and all.

But, hey, since geographical credibility is now an issue, what about yourself? How often do you make it out of New York? You hit the rural honky-tonks often? Let me guess, every other weekend you hop in the car and play washboard at hoedowns throughout the Poconos and Appalachia?


Dude you are way too sensitive. Your the one that constantly talks about all the nut jobs you encounter and says I am in a cocoon of tolerance or something like that. I am suggesting the reverse and you get all offended. We are just trying to have a conversation here. Maybe we'd better just back off and not speak anymore. I don't want to get you more angry than you already obviously are.


It's not sensitivity and I'm not angry. It's merely frustration. I share what I see and you keep trying to tell me it doesn't exist. I'm not minimizing the "nutjobs," you are. Like I said a few posts back...I think there's a whole lot more what you call "fringe nutjobs and extremists" out there than you think, because more "average" Joes are parroting the extremist nutjobbery. When there are 50%-60% poll numbers out there saying that many people believe that Obama is a socialist, that's pretty telling to me, especially when I 100% believe that 95% of those people don't know what socialism even is, it's just the buzzword of the day.

Actually, believe it or not, I have a bit of respect for the "nutjobs and extremists." At least they are honest and their motivations are clear.


Bhawk - 8/11/2010 at 02:02 PM

When did I state that we are on the verge of civil war?

Why do I waste so many keystrokes?


michaelsio - 8/11/2010 at 02:30 PM

quote:

All great leaders, including FDR recognize that in this country you govern by consensus of the majority. You cannot get out too far ahead of public opinion. You can try to influence it but you cannot govern in opposition to it. The constitution protects the civil rights of the minority. But laws are passed by majorities.


While that may be true of the House, the US Senate can have a majority representing less than 20% of the US population.

Just something to think about.


What I meant is that the government passes unpopular laws at it's peril which is why it rarely does so.


What's right may not be popular. I would bet if you put the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to a national referendum in 1965, it would have failed.
Everybody loves tax reform, but the Tax Reform act of 1986 lead to the S&L crisis.

One took leadership going against the tide, the other catered to the whims of the majority.


alloak41 - 8/11/2010 at 02:44 PM


Everybody loves tax reform, but the Tax Reform act of 1986 lead to the S&L crisis.


Who knew? I had always thought the overbuilding of commercial real estate ventures and condominium-type residences was the cause. Wrong again.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 02:52 PM

quote:
quote:

All great leaders, including FDR recognize that in this country you govern by consensus of the majority. You cannot get out too far ahead of public opinion. You can try to influence it but you cannot govern in opposition to it. The constitution protects the civil rights of the minority. But laws are passed by majorities.


While that may be true of the House, the US Senate can have a majority representing less than 20% of the US population.

Just something to think about.


What I meant is that the government passes unpopular laws at it's peril which is why it rarely does so.


What's right may not be popular. I would bet if you put the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to a national referendum in 1965, it would have failed.
Everybody loves tax reform, but the Tax Reform act of 1986 lead to the S&L crisis.

One took leadership going against the tide, the other catered to the whims of the majority.


Actually I think it's the reverse. The Civil Right Act passed in 1965 because the public was finally ready for it. Of course it was still opposed in the racist South but on the whole the time had come in 1965 and Johnson was skilled at convincing Congress of that fact.

I am not saying all laws have to be popular or have majority support. Sometimes you do have to do what's right. But in such a case, the leader needs to find a way to convince the population that he is doing the right thing and bring them along. FDR was the master at this.


dougrhon - 8/11/2010 at 02:53 PM

quote:

Everybody loves tax reform, but the Tax Reform act of 1986 lead to the S&L crisis.


Who knew? I had always thought the overbuilding of commercial real estate ventures and condominium-type residences was the cause. Wrong again.


The Tax Reform act of 1986 was utterly bi-partisan was championed by Bill Bradley and signed by Ronald Reagan and did a tremendous amount of good for the country by greatly simplifying the federal tax code.


michaelsio - 8/11/2010 at 03:29 PM

quote:

Everybody loves tax reform, but the Tax Reform act of 1986 lead to the S&L crisis.


Who knew? I had always thought the overbuilding of commercial real estate ventures and condominium-type residences was the cause. Wrong again.

Right. The tax act allowed S&L's to involved in this speculative behavior. That speculative investment caused the failure.

Now you know.


johnj - 8/11/2010 at 04:32 PM

I don't care what colo you are, if you came to this country on a floating door you don't belong. Get your papers or get out


er1016 - 8/11/2010 at 04:37 PM

quote:
quote:
I live in Georgia and although it has been leaning towards the red side for the last several elections, it was better known as a blue state in years past. Personally, I would describe it as more of a moderate state. People tend to gravitate towards the center on things and the candidate that is closest to center wins for the most part.


Isn't that mostly because of Atlanta? I live in Pennsylvania and once you're outside of Pittsburgh and Philly, this state is as red as any other republican stronghold.


I'd say it certainly is a factor but being the sole reason, no. There are a lot of rural Georgia that could accurately be described as Blue dog democrats.

[Edited on 8/11/2010 by er1016]


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=109052