irate marine's letter home

[Azazello1313]

do we build the wall before or after we initiate the Guest Worker Program proposed by Bush?

 

 

well, let's say (for the sake of argument) we were able to secure the border, by building a wall, or whatever. well there's still however many millions of people here illegally. what you do with them....whether you spend billions rounding them up and booting them out, or gradually try and incorporate them into the society, or whatever...is really a totally separate issue. and of course, whatever you do is ultimately pointless unless you take serious measures to secure the border first. so i guess the correct answer to your lame rhetorical question would have to be 'before'.

[Azazello1313]

Do you pay attention to anything that actually goes on, or are you just interested in cheering for a political party?

 

 

 

Do you pay attention to anything that actually goes on, or are you just interested in cheering against a political party?

[untateve]

well, let's say (for the sake of argument) we were able to secure the border, by building a wall, or whatever. well there's still however many millions of people here illegally. what you do with them....whether you spend billions rounding them up and booting them out, or gradually try and incorporate them into the society, or whatever...is really a totally separate issue. and of course, whatever you do is ultimately pointless unless you take serious measures to secure the border first. so i guess the correct answer to your lame rhetorical question would have to be 'before'.

 

 

Of course my question was lame. I didn't expect anyone with a brain to respond to it. My point is is that neither party has any real desire to stop the flow of illegal aliens. We can all debate the reasons but bottom line--the repubs nor the dems in office will [edit to add] not do anything substantial to stem the flow of illegal aliens.

Edited April 24, 2007 by untateve

[Azazello1313]

Of course my question was lame. I didn't expect anyone with a brain to respond to it. My point is is that neither party has any real desire to stop the flow of illegal aliens. We can all debate the reasons but bottom line--the repubs nor the dems in office will [edit to add] not do anything substantial to stem the flow of illegal aliens.

 

 

how does "bush's guestworker program" (which, i believe, more congressional democrats were on board with than republicans) demonstrate that neither party has any desire to stop the flow of illegal aliens?

 

the truth is one party keeps trying to introduce measures to secure the border, and the other party keeps crying that it's racist, that it's like east berlin, that it's "mean-spirited", and so on, so that little actually gets done. and then they blame "bush's guestworker program".

[dmarc117]

No.... because if we leave, we can take 4 trillion dollars worth of military resources and go offensive on the terrorists instead of sitting in one place and giving them an undefendable easy target to keep jabbing at.

 

 

 

so if we find that they are training and operating in syria and iran, do we bomb them there?

[Ursa Majoris]

how does "bush's guestworker program" (which, i believe, more congressional democrats were on board with than republicans) demonstrate that neither party has any desire to stop the flow of illegal aliens?

 

the truth is one party keeps trying to introduce measures to secure the border, and the other party keeps crying that it's racist, that it's like east berlin, that it's "mean-spirited", and so on, so that little actually gets done. and then they blame "bush's guestworker program".

 

Wanna run that by us one more time, this time allowing for six completely untrammeled years of total Republican control, with enormous public support for illegal immigration measures? You gonna put the total lack of action over that six years down to Democrats crying?

[bushwacked]

or are you just interested in cheering against a political party?

 

 

 

I guess I'd rather be accussed of that then the former. It's not like I compare Bush to Hitler while others are comparing Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton to terrorists.

 

What exactly has been done over the last 6.5 years that I should be applauding?

 

It's kind of cute how sensitive and defensive you get with your diehard Republican loyalty.

[untateve]

how does "bush's guestworker program" (which, i believe, more congressional democrats were on board with than republicans) demonstrate that neither party has any desire to stop the flow of illegal aliens?

 

the truth is one party keeps trying to introduce measures to secure the border, and the other party keeps crying that it's racist, that it's like east berlin, that it's "mean-spirited", and so on, so that little actually gets done. and then they blame "bush's guestworker program".

 

 

Because I have almost always refrained from name calling, I am going to bow out of this debate. I have no answer for you. You are the victor.

[bushwacked]

Of course my question was lame. I didn't expect anyone with a brain to respond to it.

 

 

 

Yea!....I mean..ummmmm....

 

ETA - I guess I didn't respons to that particular question. Pat Buchanan is my final answer.

Edited April 24, 2007 by bushwacked

[Doc Holliday]

Is that "ouch" as in "my neo-con momo allies here in the huddle say so many stupid things it hurts"?

 

Or that "ouch" as in some lame attempt telling us we've been "served"?

 

 

 

Ouch as in, that foot in your mouth is giving you athletes mouth

 

Which party do you think will take the lead on building the wall around America?

 

 

So we are taking this topic from GW Bush to pick a side?

 

[bushwacked]

Detlef and Untateve have been served!

[Yukon Cornelius]

Go on Dead Tour?

 

 

i vote for this one

Detlef and Untateve have been served!

 

[AtomicCEO]

so if we find that they are training and operating in syria and iran, do we bomb them there?

 

 

If it were part of a long term plan for success, maybe.

 

If it were a knee-jerk reaction with no forethought or planning for what would happen next, then no.

[dmarc117]

Al Qaeda... training for terrorist missions... in a place out of the control of the government, and without the government's consent.

 

You tell me how it's different. If anything... Florida should have been better prepared to stop it from happening.

 

 

 

this would require surveillance, wire tapping, interrogation, etc....and we all know how the liberal posse feel about those things.

Edited April 24, 2007 by dmarc117

[AtomicCEO]

this would require surveillance, wire tapping, interrogation, etc....and we all know how the liberal posse feel about those things.

 

 

It wouldn't have required anything more than enforcing the laws we already have.

 

You're a coward and a traitor to America to give up your freedom for a little security. Go ahead and snivel your way to another country where you can be safe.

[Furd]

Because I have almost always refrained from name calling, I am going to bow out of this debate. I have no answer for you. You are the victor.

 

 

 

You should know better that to argue with a company man about his company.

[Clubfoothead]

For the final time, if one is serious about terrorism and serious about securing the borders, 2 words:

 

Iraqi slaves.

[Brewer]

this would require surveillance, wire tapping, interrogation, etc....and we all know how the liberal posse feel about those things.

 

 

If these things are done properly, I don't believe that liberals have a problem with them. Liberals only have a problem with them when you have to make chit up as you go to justify doing them

[Azazello1313]

Because I have almost always refrained from name calling, I am going to bow out of this debate. I have no answer for you. You are the victor.

 

 

it sounds like you're admitting the only response to my well-oiled arguments you can come up with is name-calling.

 

 

hahahahaha, i win again!

[Azazello1313]

while you're thinking of names to call me, unta, i submit this editorial for your consideration...

Who killed immigration reform? The autopsy shows it was Senate Democrats.

 

It's tempting to put a pox on both parties. But it wouldn't be fair. Republicans were tireless in search of comprehensive, and bipartisan, reform. Sen. John McCain of Arizona joined with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to draft the guest-worker legislation, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter made that legislation central to what his committee sent to the full Senate. Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas were vocal in their support. Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska offered a helpful compromise. And Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist showed leadership by reaching out to the other side.

 

Too bad you can't say the same for Democratic leader Harry Reid, who was the villain in this drama.

 

Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin-American Citizens, told me that he tried to impress upon Reid's office that it was important to get immigration reform done.

 

“Apparently, it fell on deaf ears,” Flores said.

 

Reid claims it was GOP hard-liners who killed reform by running roughshod over Frist.

 

Baloney. The hard-liners had – by all accounts – no more than 30 votes, including those of conservative Democrats. On the other side, you had – according to McCain – as many as 70 votes.

 

A deal was at hand that would have offered legal status to some illegal immigrants. It would have made the GOP seem more Latino-friendly, but it would also have infuriated organized labor, which opposes something that was in the mix: guest workers.

 

After the Senate Judiciary Committee put out a guest-worker bill, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney issued a statement saying: “Guest-workers programs are a bad idea and harm all workers.”

 

That did it. Senate Democrats sided with labor and sold out Latinos. The deal came undone because Reid refused to allow the legislation to go through the amendment process. Republicans had come up with as many as 400 amendments but whittled the list to 20. Reid agreed to proceed with debate on just three.

 

It was a masterstroke by Democrats. Labor is happy. And while Latinos are angry, there's always the chance that Democrats can fool them into channeling that anger toward Republicans.

 

Remarkably, it's working. At a protest in Washington Monday, one Latina held up a sign that read: “The GOP is losing my Latino vote.” At another protest in Dallas, someone handed out registration leaflets urging demonstrators to vote Democratic.

 

Some Latino leaders don't think it'll be that easy. Cecilia Munoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, told me: “I don't believe that it's wise for Democrats to come to our community and ask for votes by saying: 'Hey, we kept an immigration bill from going forward.' ... People understand when they're being used.”

 

Even so, it looks like Reid and the Democrats orchestrated the perfect deception. Trouble is, they left fingerprints.

 

The Washington Post said in an editorial: “Democrats – whether their motive was partisan advantage or legitimate fear of a bad bill emerging from conference with the House – are the ones who refused, in the end, to proceed with debate on amendments, which is, after all, how legislation gets made.”

 

Frank Sharry, the executive director of the liberal National Immigration Forum, said in a statement: “We cannot escape the conclusion that the Democratic Senate leadership was more interested in keeping the immigration issue alive in the run-up to midterms than in enacting immigration reform legislation.”

 

And Sen. Kennedy told The Associated Press: “Politics got ahead of policy on this.” He then refused, according to the article, to defend Reid's performance. The story noted that, “Outside the Senate, several Democratic strategists concluded that the best politics was to allow the bill to die.”

 

The moral: Marches and Mexican flags don't equal power. Labor uses millions of dollars in political contributions to take care of Democrats, and so Democrats take care of labor.

 

After the bill died, Democrats rubbed salt in the wound by insisting that Latinos had no choice but to stay on the liberal hacienda. Susan Estrich, who served as campaign manager for Michael Dukakis in 1988, told Fox News that Republicans had blown their chance to win Latino votes and predicted that Latino support would help Democrats win both houses of Congress.

 

You see, in a twist on the famous words of one of their icons, Democrats no longer ask what they can do for Latinos, only what Latinos can do for them.

 

Navarrette can reached via e-mail at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

[dmarc117]

It wouldn't have required anything more than enforcing the laws we already have.

 

You're a coward and a traitor to America to give up your freedom for a little security. Go ahead and snivel your way to another country where you can be safe.

 

 

 

so you dont want to be safe and secure?

 

in this crazy world, i dont mind giving up a little bit in order to be a safer. if that makes me a traitor, than call me benedict arnold.

[bushwacked]

if that makes me a traitor, than call me benedict arnold.

 

 

I don't think anyone will mistake you for Benjamin Franklin.

[dmarc117]

I don't think anyone will mistake you for Benjamin Franklin.

 

 

 

here we go with the fore fathers comparisons....things are just a little different nowadays. if only al queda lined up across from us 15yds away like the redcoats did, things would be much easier. drastic problems call for drastic measures sometimes. its our way of life now. we have these nut jobs that want us all dead....left, right, black or white....they dont care, they want us dead. and wont stop til we are. so yes, if thats means giving up a little bit, then im for it.

[AtomicCEO]

so you dont want to be safe and secure?

 

in this crazy world, i dont mind giving up a little bit in order to be a safer. if that makes me a traitor, than call me benedict arnold.

 

 

I already did.

[skins]

This was a hilarious thread.

 

What is going on now in Iraq is called a prolonged withdrawal. The so-called surge and extra troops are a short term fix to cover the withdrawal which will take place over the next 2-4 years, if America is lucky.

 

It is already over and all that is left is political bs like Republicans calling other Americans traitors, one of their favorite pastimes. It is amusing when the ones who fight the stupid unnecessary wars and then lose them blame everyone but themselves.

Edited April 25, 2007 by skins