Powered by TypePad

« Having Fun Now... | Main | The 'Hubris' Of Richard Armitage »

August 26, 2006

Comments

Bob

new boy... I did that on purpose. Don't be quoting people without properly stating were the quote is from. The way you posted it, anyone could have said it!

We like to see context here.

Furthermore you assume that we all think Newt is our cup of tea. To be honest I doubt any politicians view of history. Both sides of the isle would love to believe they've had huge impact on the progress of this country. However the truth is just the opposite.

You my friend are too gullible to realize when your getting chain yanked!

Cecil Turner

Gore never said he invented the Internet.

Fair point. He said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
But it's also fair to point out that's a ridiculous overstatement. Seriously, if that's the main recommendation for this guy, I think most folks'll pass.

lurker

Bob was just telling you that your age is coming through your arguments.

SunnyDay

OMG - did anyone just hear Bob Shcieffer's closing line on FTN?? Unbelievable!! Has he gone senile??

lurker

new guy, you need years before you really see the truth and facts. Your gullibility is really coming through your arguments.

How about the "Living Constitution"?

lurker

If Newt Gingrich runs for US presidency, I wouldn't vote for him.

Bob

Oh and one more thing... my guess is that you lifted that quote from some blog. So make sure you find the original quote and not some clipping. If not here's no context!

Remember this is not KOS or DU, where quoting other blogs is considered "truth to power"!

Bob

There goes my anger again... here's = there's

lurker

"After that I think the GOP was gun shy and pretty much just gave Clinton what he wanted."

Of course, the Republicans were too nice and didn't know how to play the democrats' game. The democrats' game is very vicious, corrupt, and unethical.

Bush had to learn it the hard way since he came into the office.

Now that is not to say that ALL Republicans play that vicious game. Some do but most do not.

Some democrats do not play this vicious game. But that perception is carried over to a general statement about the democrats.

lurker

Bob, a brief google / dogpile showed me that new guy had been reading those leftwing blogs and believing them.

new guy

Lurker,
It is the Veto that makes it the presidents budget. Not only does the president submit his budget, but if he doesn't approve of what congress sends back, he vetoes it. That's why the government shutdowns in 95 and 96 and the budgets afterwards show very clearly - it's the presidents budget.

Patrick R. Sullivan

I think it's great that after three years Isikoff and Corn now appear to know almost as much about the Plame leak as we regulars here.

Wonder when Jeff will catch on.

lurker

Sometimes the US president has no choice, new guy. It takes alot of wrangling between themselves to come up to agreements plus the budge plan comes in several hundred pages.

Did you read about the recent Senate Immigration Bill, btw? About how the democrats sneaked in a new bill that they had been pushing for quite some time that repeals the 1996 act? The repeal of this 1996 act allows universities and colleges to charge out of state illegal immigrants the same fees as the state resident's?

The vote passed before anyone noticed the sneak in.

No telling what Congress sneaked in before our US president signed the bill.

It's still Congress's budget plan.

lurker

Patrick R. Sullivan, Jeff hasn't caught on. He recognizes Armitage but still believes that Rove leaked and that WH adm's goals were to discredit Wilson and ruin their careers.

Bob

new guy... we usually give "new guys" a little room in the beginning, but your starting the classic liberal "rope a dope" argument meme.

I mean we'd all like to play along, but it's starts getting old if your just going to through out these ridiculous statements without any research behind them. Please share with us you enlightenment, so respect your arguments.

At the ripe old age of 32 you must know how to do basic research... I mean you even get to use Big Al's big bad Internet to do it too!

I can't waste anymore time today. I have to get back to my own invention. I hope it's as good as http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47281-2001Feb8.html>this one!

Damn Al's going to be mad...

Jim Miller

Three historical facts for the "new guy":

1. When Clinton took office in 1993, the country was in the middle of a recovery from a recession.

2. The recovery was weak until after the Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 election. (Which was one reason they won.)

3. When Clinton left office in 2001, the country was in, or about to enter, another recession. (Depending on how you define recessions.)

One can draw a number of conclusions from those three facts, but one can not conclude that Clinton had a brilliant record on the economy.

(My own evaluation? I think Clinton did badly in his first two years and then was forced, by the Republican victory in 1994, to mostly leave the economy alone, which was the right policy. But he carried it too far, giving us massive corruption, the internet bubble, and a recession. Bush had to clean up after Clinton, and has mostly succeeded in doing so.)

Finally, a hint for the "new guy": In reasoning about causation, it is always well to consider what happened first.

lurker

Al Gore's new "Global Warning" movie flopped big time, anyway.

I still hold Congress, both parties, RESPONSIBLE for coming with the federal budget that supports the country, regardless of US president's signature. For the last 50 years, Congress has been IRRESPONSIBLE for their spending habits by endorsing earmarks and pork programs.

A US president's veto forces the budget plan to go back to Congress to be worked on OR voted 2/3 by Congress to be passed. Either way, Congress wins in most cases.

You ever hear about the $500.00 wrench? $800.00 toilet? They are part of the cost breakdown of the contract award by one of our military organizations while Clinton was in the office.

Bob

Jim Miller wrote:
"One can draw a number of conclusions from those three facts, but one can not conclude that Clinton had a brilliant record on the economy."

Correct Jim! I'd say it was more like being in the right place at the right time. The Technology boom was well under way before he entered office, and collapsed towards the very end of his second term. Both of these facts had nothing to with Clinton's poilicies or control.

Jane

Much of it was in Gingrich's contract with America. Dems want more regulation and oversight.

New guy. I must have missed Gingrich's presidency. For a party that blames a hurricane on Bush, you sure as hell pass the buck when it comes to your own guy.

The millennium bomber was caught after specific intel led to increased border security directed to look for exactly what they found. That's good police work.

Ahhh, and I guess it sort of forgives, the "police work' done after the first WTC bombing, right? And is that also your excuse for the Gorelik wall?


That good counter-terrorism work. Clinton's team got the job done.

If they got the job done, 911 would not have happened.

9/11 was on Bush's watch. The Bush's team failed and although they were warned by Berger and Clark adnausium about Bin Ladin, Bush vacationed all summer long the major national security speech Rice was scheduled to give on 9/11 contained exactly one sentence about Islamic terrorism and 20 minute on Star Wars.

Those talking point has pretty much come back to bite you in the ass, new guy. What exactly do you think Sandy Burglar was stuffing down his pants that day - his prolific warnings to President Bush? You've been a bit brainwashed new guy which brings us back to the fact that a 2 party system requires 2 competant parties, not one which has as it's entire substance George Soros talking points.


On top of all that, every time Clinton went after Bin Ladin the entire GOP demanded he stop using the good men and women

Right...as we know Clinton preferred bad women. You really need to do a little reading beyond Kos. Your sense of history sounds like the nutroots version.

clarice

Lurker, lots of folks have forgotten that pre 9-11 security at Logan had been questioned and Kennedy and Kerry were happy with keeping that place a pork pit and did nothing to change the situation.

Here's Isikoff with nothing with haven't known for ages:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
Armitage deserves to be reviled for letting an innocent man take the heat for his own actions ..

Jane

You know that Newsweek piece is disturbing as it never even raises the question of why this investigation went forward at all.

Cecil Turner

Armitage deserves to be reviled for letting an innocent man take the heat for his own actions ..

Concur, though to what extent depends on how much Fitz's presser statement was directed at him:

I have asked people, as a request, not to compromise the investigation by talking.
If, as I suspect, he was one of the main referents, then it's a bit more understandable (especially given Fitz's power to make his life miserable). The Captain has a good piece on it.

Bob

Jane after the 2004 election the dems had to give the moonbats some hope. Remember this whole Wilson/Plame thing was an effort to hurt Bush in the election, and when it didn't work they had to come up with something.

Did you really think that Newsweak would admit it was a hoax?

ed

Hmmm.

@ SteveMG

Send this to every knucklehead who wants to send a message to the Republicans by voting Democratic or staying at home.

You know as well as I do that people wouldn't be talking about not voting Republican *IF* the Republicans hadn't deliberately alienated them.

I didn't make the Republicans sit on their ass for 25+ years and do nothing about illegal aliens.

I didn't make the Republicans try to force an amnesty down conservative's throats.

I didn't force the Republicans to campaign for decades on the concept of smaller government only to change their opinon when they got the whip hand.

I didn't force the Republicans into extraordinary hypocrisy as they proclaim how dangerous terrorism is, and yet how it isn't dangerous enough to actually secure the damn borders.

...

You say I have to ignore my own views principles, and how the GOP has crapped all over them, to keep bad things from happening.

How about the Republican party ignoring their own agenda and deal with excessive spending and illegal aliens to keep bad things from happening?

Why is it, yet again, conservatives must be the ones to knuckle under? Why is it that I must be the one to disregard my beliefs? Why am I the bad guy if I don't kowtow to the GOP?

Because frankly at this point. I really don't give a damn about the Republicans. I've spent the past 25+ years supporting the GOP because they've been promising me, *for 25+ f**king years now*, that they pass legislation on a specific set of issues. And all I've gotten in that timeframe is one more yank on my chain.

Sorry. But the Republican party can go hang for all I care. Will the Democrats take over in Nov? I don't know. But I know I'm not convinced that they'd do a worse job than the Republicans.

And perhaps it's time they got a chance to prove themselves.

Don't like it? Don't care.

clarice

You're being very charitable Cecil.(Don't forget Woodward's source who is clearly Armitage) refused several attempts to give him a waiver to talk to Fitz.
I'm with Capt Ed:McCain should dump Armitage from his roster of advisors.


The only good things I can find in this is that it should finally put the kibbosh on special prosecutions and special prosecutors and it places Fitz' career in another trajectory..

ed

Hmmmm.

On top of all that, every time Clinton went after Bin Ladin the entire GOP demanded he stop using the good men and women

That's idiotic.

Clinton never really considered using American ground forces to get OBL, ever. He used cruise missiles.

Rick Ballard

Pelosi - Speaker

Frank - Financial Services

Rangel - Ways and Means

Dingell - Energy

Conyers - Judiciary

Hastings - Intelligence

There is a very good RNC ad in the making here. I'm sure that a little checking will reveal that this group was strongly supportive of Commissar Clinton's Plan to Remove Choice Concerning Health Care. I'm positive that every one of them has a liberal rating commensurate with their standing in the Socialist Democrat 'movement'. The contrast with the current speaker and committee chairs would be very effective.

Hastert - Speaker

Michael Oxley - Financial Services

Clay Shaw - Ways and Means

Joe Barton - Energy

Jim Sensenbrenner - Judiciary

Pete Hoekstra - Intelligence

Tired, very old, one trick liberal ponies against seasoned thoroughbreds. A great contrast ad or ad series.

Cecil Turner

(Don't forget Woodward's source who is clearly Armitage) refused several attempts to give him a waiver to talk to Fitz.

Not sure that's right. Most stories paraphrase Woodward to this or similar effect:

Woodward said he received a waiver from the source to testify before Fitzgerald but not to identify the source publicly, ground rules that Woodward and the Post accepted.
And I'm not saying Fitz's request (if it happened) makes Armitage's reticence laudable . . . but perhaps a bit more understandable.

Semanticleo

Ed;

It's the same for me and many others on the other side of the aisle. I have no time for
Dem apologists who seek to retain power in spite of the loss in principled credibility.

If somebody f**ks up, they should be called on it and summarily dismissed. But the Plausible Denialists,who would vote for a doberman if it had the right Party credentials, disagree.

These are the ones who are played to with
ignominous stump speeches that tickle their ears and generate the temporary hard-ons
which lead to election day victories. These are the people with gnat-time attention spans and a lascivious taste for delusion, and they are the reason pap drivelled out by savvy campaign managers with a gift for manipulating the gullible, have full employment. Oh, they don't see themsleves as gullible. Far from it.

No, some see themselves as stalwart and informed, but are blindly partisan Political or ideological tar-babies who stick to the story no matter what unfolding facts overtake them. 'My country right or wrong' only applies when it is the proper politcal hackmeister occupying a place of power. Then, it's 'damn the torpedoes' even if it means taking everyone down with them.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ Semanticleo

I'm not endorsing Democrats. I'm not voting Democrats.

But I'm also not endorsing Republicans, and most assuredly not voting for them either.

My vote and/or support isn't a lock for either party. If someone proves they're worth supporting, then so. If someone doesn't, then so.

Jane

Jane after the 2004 election the dems had to give the moonbats some hope. Remember this whole Wilson/Plame thing was an effort to hurt Bush in the election, and when it didn't work they had to come up with something.

Bob,

It's the entire void of anything resembling integrity that bothers me. Armitage, Powell, Fitzgerald, and a whole host of other people simply lack integrity. And it pisses me off. Wilson et al are simply scum, but the rest of them should feel some sense of obligation to the electorate.

clarice

Cecil--there were two parts to what Woodward said. (1) His source refused at least twice to give him a waiver to speak to Fitz and (2) even after finally getting the wwaiver and speaking to Fitz (post-indictment )Woodward could not publicly reveal his name because the waiver went only to his aiding the investigation.


Let's see how long he's kept on the Straight Talk Express.

Laddy

Anyone remember the story about Fitz having to drop an indictiment against a real estate guy? This was about the same time a lot of stuff was breaking on Plame and Fitz about to indict former gov. Ryan in Illinois. It was in the midst of talk here about Fitz's competency? I've googles all sorts of things and it doesn't pop up for me anywhere. The lefties are popping out the argument that Fitz is honorable and beyond reproach in all ways and wouldn't conduct a witch hunt with no crime apparent.

topsecretk9

Franks Cowles, Jr.

Clarice

Yes, I wrote something on that. He (frank Cowles)targetted the victim as the perp, cost the man mucha agita, mas dollares and a key corporate position only to have to drop the prosecution as erroneous weeks later.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5362

Bob

Jane I was mostly speaking about the Democratic machine... but I agree you would have expected better from Powell anyway. My only guess is they were all hoping that this would go away on it's own and it was purely a waiting game!

We can all thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet in order to keep this alive!

topsecretk9

Franks Cowles, Jr.

Laddy

Thanks TS9 and Clarice. :)

Cecil Turner

(1) His source refused at least twice to give him a waiver to speak to Fitz and . . .

His initial story was:

Woodward said he was contacted to testify after his source went to Fitzgerald to discuss his contact with Woodward related to the leak investigation.
And didn't even tell his exec editor because:
"I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's job No. 1 in a case like this," Woodward told the paper. "I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want to do anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."
In any event, Woodward's version is at best half of the story.

TallDave

Heh, Tradesports. I remember when it was at 70% for Kerry on Election Day as those flawed exit polls came in.

boris

not convinced that they'd do a worse job

Cut and run? Oh, Mexicans are what's got you upset, yeah the dems will fix that pronto. Illegal ??? not any more.

Republicans are to blame for illegal immigration the same way Bush is to blame for Katrina.

Conservative principles? #1 is prudence.

Bob

funny how "new guy" disappeared, and within minutes enter left stage semanticleo!

hmmmmmmmmm

Rick Ballard

Shoot, and I was hoping for a debate on why Bela Pelosi would make a better Speaker than Denny Hastert?

Maybe even better - what elements of Alcee Hastings background suggest that the country would be better off with him at Intelligence rather than Pete Hoekstra?

Maybe the Dems could try and set up a series of debates? It would be a sure fire winner for them.

ed

Hmmmmm.

Cut and run? Oh, Mexicans are what's got you upset, yeah the dems will fix that pronto. Illegal ??? not any more.

No what has me upset is that Republicans have been talking of taking action for 25+ years if only they had a majority in Congress. Then when they finally did get a majority in Congress they decided instead it was time to spent a boatload of money on pet projects and close buddies, and to give amnesty to illegals.

Unless my memory is spotty, which it might be, the only people to grant amnesty to illegal aliens have been Republicans.

And no I don't expect the Democrats to fix the problem with illegal aliens. Then again Democrats haven't been promising to do that for 25+ years either.

There is a need for the Republican party to be schooled. Either that is now, or when?

Republicans are to blame for illegal immigration the same way Bush is to blame for Katrina.

Really? Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who granted the first amnesty that then convinced even more illegals to cross the border?

Haven't the Republicans been in control for years now?

Didn't Bush promise to hire 2,000 Border Patrol agents a year?

Didn't Bush hire less than 130 Border Patrol agents in 2005?

Don't bullshit me. Republicans are in charge, so that makes them responsible. That's why conservatives worked so hard to put them in charge, in the hope that they would act responsibly.

Conservative principles? #1 is prudence.

Really? And what exactly is prudent then?

Republicans willing to sign into law a bill that would have allowed 100+ million immigrants in less than 20 years?

Republicans using the Not Quite Global War on Terror to get re-elected? And I call it the "Not Quite" because it evidently doesn't involve the Mexican border. We're spending billions to safeguard the borders of Iraq with American soldiers, UAVs and surveillance aircraft but not OUR borders? Explain that one to me.

Or how about this, since I've asked this question many times on various blogs, just how dangerous is the Not Quite Global War on Terror? Is it very dangerous? Are we Americans definitely threatened by this danger? And yet this danger isn't quite so dangerous as to require securing our borders?

So the Not Quite Global War on Terror is very dangerous, but not dangerous enough to secure the borders? What precise level of danger is that?

How prudent is it to allow tens of thousands of murderers, pedophiles, con-man, robbers and rapists to enter America freely? Not to mention terrorists and terrorist sympathisers?

Go ahead boris. Be detailed. Be descriptive. Be precise.

Rick Ballard

And they haven't banned fluoridation either, so our precious bodily fluids are being poisoned and look - not at my ears stupid - at this big chart showing how the country is almost bankrupt and pretty soon birds won't even sing anymore.

Anyone up for a seminar? Poster, that is.

Bob
"Republicans willing to sign into law a bill that would have allowed 100+ million immigrants in less than 20 years?"

I don't think you can say Republicans... we have our DINO's too. This was a feeble attempt that got shot down very quickly.

Jane

New guy seems to have taken his leave, but I thought I'd leave this note about his hero Sandy Burgler and his role in catching bin Laden via Ace's review of "The Path to 9/11":

One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/194225.php

ed

Hmmm.

It only got shot down because an independent think tank pointed out something that not one single senator had known. If it hadn't been for that, it would have become law because the House Republicans were desperate at that time for bill to be signed that would allow them to claim that they really had accomplished something.

And please don't mention how tough the House Republicans have been on immigration. That only happened because the House Republicans finally realised how big the anti-illegal movement is. Prior to that they were desperately trying to remove the tough language from the House bill.

It was the Democrats who prevented the Republicans from watering down the House bill, and so saved some Republicans from the axe this Nov. Strange isn't it?

Cecil Turner

So the Not Quite Global War on Terror is very dangerous, but not dangerous enough to secure the borders? What precise level of danger is that?

Sorry, but the way to fight the GWOT is to reduce enemy capabilities abroad, not count on catching every smuggler at the border. The miserable failure that is the "War on Drugs" ought to've taught us the futility of that approach, at least.

boris

only people to grant amnesty to illegal aliens have been Republicans

Hello ... earth to ed ... Republicans are the only ones who "CARE" about their legality. "Law" that is not enforced is worthless and apparently Dems are ok with that, in fact that's their stock in trade. SYMBOLISM. (who else can come with examples of Dem show laws never intended to actually do anything besides hire more government workers indebted to Democrats and hostile to Republicans. What happens to Republicans who try and DO SOMETHING ??? Answer that honestly if you want some credibility back.

Lemme know when "RACIST BIGOT" stops working against Republicans seeking election.

boris

not count on catching every smuggler at the border

There's "doing something ... anything ... "

And there's realistic solutions. A guarded electronicly surveiled fence is feasible. Short of that (aint happenin) is just venting hot air. Mexican workers are not terrorists, and that area of the country is not hospitable to foreign strangers. I expect we've let it be known to the denizens of the region how much we appreciate them keeping an eye out for suspicious characters.

Rick Ballard

There is an outstanding reason why 40% of the illegal immigrant problem is located in California and not in Texas - with a much longer border.

You might want to look at what Dems in California (Los Angeles in particular) have done to exacerbate the Mexican illegal problem before trying to pin it on the Reps, Ed. Try starting with the LA City Council in 1978 and work forward - it's all there.

You do realize this is a Pew/Soros production, right? The exageration of numbers and the planting of "outrage" stories come right out of the McCain/Feingold playbook.

ed

Hmmmm.

The miserable failure that is the "War on Drugs" ought to've taught us the futility of that approach, at least.

Isn't one reason why the War on Drugs a complete mess is because we haven't secured the borders? Look at how the War on Drugs is being fought then.

1. At the source.

By influencing local governments, aiding military and police forces in clamping down on drug growers and smuggles.

2. At the point of distribution and sale.

By increasing police powers and presence in penetrating and jailing those that distribute or sell drugs.

Isn't that precisely the path we're taking with the Not Quite Global War on Terror?

Aren't we influencing local governments to fight terrorism? Aren't we aiding military and police forces to clamp down on terrorists? Aren't we increasing police powers and acting to penetrate terrorist gangs in order to jail them?

So why is the War on Drugs such a dismal failure when the Not Quite Global War on Terror a, so far, success? Isn't that because, at present, the drug runners depend far more on a permeable border? And how will the NQGWOT work if/when the terrorists even more?

Isn't the prudent thing to secure the borders now?

ed

Hmmmm.

@ boris

1.

Hello ... earth to ed ... Republicans are the only ones who "CARE" about their legality.

Hello ... earth to boris ... Yes, to give them citizenship in the hopes of buying their loyalty.

2.

"Law" that is not enforced is worthless and apparently Dems are ok with that, in fact that's their stock in trade. SYMBOLISM.

Really? Then why don't you explain in precise detail just how much respect Bush as for the immigration laws that his administration has fought to NOT enforce.

3.

(who else can come with examples of Dem show laws never intended to actually do anything besides hire more government workers indebted to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

You mean like the immigation enforcement laws passed by the Republicans that they never actually intended to enforce?

The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife.

4.

What happens to Republicans who try and DO SOMETHING ??? Answer that honestly if you want some credibility back.

I dunno. They get re-elected? They fulfill their campaign promises?

Your assertion is rather odd, and somewhat strange. If Republicans must avoid doing anything in order to preserve their political careers, then what exactly is the point of electing them in the first place?

Logic. It's a strange land for some people.

5.

Lemme know when "RACIST BIGOT" stops working against Republicans seeking election.

I advise less alcohol, fewer barbituates and quite possibly a cold shower as I have not a clue as to why you included this last bit.

Cecil Turner

Isn't the prudent thing to secure the borders now?

No, because it simply isn't feasible. Standard rules-of-thumb for military planning is a division for a 20-30 km front. That yields more than 100 divisions for the 2000 mile southern border alone. Expand the front by a factor of ten (allowing leakers for the sake of economy), and it still uses our entire army . . . and doesn't work. Besides, leakers across the borders aren't our main security threat.

The prudent defensive measures are to screen containers at overseas terminals, aircraft passengers, and work with friendly governments to deny safe havens. And place pressure (including regime change) on those governments who insist on supporting terror organizations. Trying to patch every gap in our border security is hopeless, and arguably counterproductive.

boris

explain in precise detail just how much respect Bush as

As I recall he has made proposals you don't care for.

As I recall. W doesn't work for border patrol.

As I recall enforcement requires more than words, seem to me needs judges, administrators, officers and agents who won't do it. Refuse to do it. Get in trouble if they try. You don't change that from the top you change it from the bottom. Throwing hissy fits over something you don't like is not conservative. It's kooky.

As HL Mencken once said, for every problem, there's an obvious solution that is quick, easy...and wrong.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ Rick Ballard

1.

There is an outstanding reason why 40% of the illegal immigrant problem is located in California and not in Texas - with a much longer border.

And this excuses Republicans how?

Note that I'm not holding the Democrat's feet to the fire because they've never made it a secret that they want illegals to gain amnesty. Would I want Democrats to take over? No. Will I swallow my pride and let myself get urinated upon again by the Republicans?

No.

2.

You might want to look at what Dems in California (Los Angeles in particular) have done to exacerbate the Mexican illegal problem before trying to pin it on the Reps, Ed. Try starting with the LA City Council in 1978 and work forward - it's all there.

And? What's your point?

Here's my point:

If the federal government had *never* given an amnesty in the first place, done by Republicans, then the problems we have with illegals might not be as bad as there wouldn't the dangling carrot of immediate citizenship out there.

If the Republicans had secured the borders immediately, say perhaps immediately after 9/11, then the problems we're facing now wouldn't be nearly as bad with regards to illegal aliens.

So you go right on ahead and blame the problem with illegal aliens on a bunch of goofy liberals in southern California.

But that doesn't explain away the complete and utter failure in the federal government to secure the federal borders. And it doesn't explain away the fecklessness of a President who has largely abandoned his responsibilities and duties to secure those borders.

3.

You do realize this is a Pew/Soros production, right?

Oh my? Soros has been mentioned! I must therefore harken to the appropriate voter registration arena to change my status. I must needs propel myself into the Great Political Void and shout out that I will suport Republicans come what may!

Soros! Egads!

Yes. That was sarcasm.

The minimum estimate of the number of illegal aliens is around 10 million. Frankly I believe it's closer to 25+ million. I live in New Jersey and this whole damn state is overrun with illegals.

And what I find is very interesting is that the Republican party is so very very concerned about this issue that they can't be bothered to actually find out just how many illegals there are.

It's nice when the federal government is so very vague. It makes me feel like they're really involved you know.

4.

The exageration of numbers and the planting of "outrage" stories come right out of the McCain/Feingold playbook.

Well as long as that playbook includes a couple sweeps, perhaps a linebacker blitz and an excellent appreciation for the running game, then not all is lost.

Isn't is kinda funny that you excoriate the Democrats for their conspiracy theories and yet here you are? Do you really think it's in the Democrat's favor to increase public awareness of the problems of illegal aliens when the public so very polarized against illegals? And when the Democrats have taken open positions favoring illegals?

I remain unconvinced, news at 6.

boris

might not be as bad

As bad as what exactly ? Cheap labor ?

Mexicans drinking from your water fountain ?

Thought you were worried about the "possibility" of terrorists getting through. Don't think that's actually a problem at this time.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ Cecil Turner

1.

No, because it simply isn't feasible. Standard rules-of-thumb for military planning is a division for a 20-30 km front.

That explains everything! The Border Patrol isn't organized in DIVISIONS!

Good God Cecil Turner! You're a very intelligent person who has provided a lot of great prose and information. What the *hell* do you think you're doing with this nonsense?

The reason why the frontage for a division is set like that, and in defense modes only since a division organized to attack has a much smaller frontage in order to gain depth of reserves, is because *they are fighting a battle*! Not guarding a border! Particularly when guarding that border can be done with UAVs, airborne surveillance and a damn fence system!

I would normally go through and tear you a new one over this ridiculous assertion of yours but this once, in remembrance of posts past, I won't. But I'd suggest you never again raise this sort of nonsensical assertion in a debate over domestic border security ever again.

Honestly something like this gets my back up because I've studied military history for the last 30+ years. I don't want to be rude here, but really. Don't do it again please.

100+ divisions? I think you really need to rethink your position on this.

2.

Trying to patch every gap in our border security is hopeless, and arguably counterproductive.

And just HOW is it "counterproductive"?

Has it been "counterproductive" for Israel?

Please provide detailed prose on this assertion of yours.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ boris

1.

As I recall he has made proposals you don't care for.

Well I don't view putting down a 2,000 mile long welcome mat as being really a good proposal.

2.

As I recall. W doesn't work for border patrol.

No you're right. But, and you'll get a laugh out of this, the Border Patrol *does* in fact work for W. Isn't that humorous? Boy the irony, so thick ... well you know.

Bush -> Dept. Homeland Security -> Border Patrol.

Amazing stuff this Google. Wish I had invented it. But if I had then it definitely wouldn't have been called "Google" either.

3.

As I recall enforcement requires more than words, seem to me needs judges, administrators, officers and agents who won't do it.

Yes, quite so.

And, funny thing really, they'd have to be *federal* and so they too would be working for W.

You realise of course the liberals are laughing their ass off at you right now.

4.

Refuse to do it. Get in trouble if they try.

Strangely enough that's actually the penalty for federal agents when they're not enforcing federal law.

5.

You don't change that from the top you change it from the bottom.

I see. Well then I'll certainly go find myself a Border Patrol agent and ask him very very pointed questions on why he hasn't changed federal policy on illegal aliens.

Why don't you join me?

6.

Throwing hissy fits over something you don't like is not conservative. It's kooky.

No. Being angry about being fucked by the Republican party is being me.

Whether or not that meets your approval, I couldn't give a rat's ass.

7.

As HL Mencken once said, for every problem, there's an obvious solution that is quick, easy...and wrong.

Well considering that it's been 25+ years, taken hundreds of millions of dollars in conservative donations to the Republican party. I guest that takes care of the "quick" and "easy" portions of that assertion.

As for the wrong. Well if you're so set on opposing the securing of America's borders, then why do you lock the doors to your home?

boris

Israel went with a fence and they were being attacked.

There's a connection you might want to consider.

boris

being fucked by the Republican party

Dunno ed, sounds a little kooky, in a kinky sort of way.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ boris

Mexicans drinking from your water fountain ?

Ahh the dichotomy of opposition.

On the one hand Rick Ballard is excoriating me for intimating that Republicans are racists.

On the other you, boris, are accusing me of being a racist.

The only thing that would make me happier is you, boris, were to accuse me of hating immigrants.

Which, since I am a first generation immigrant and naturalised citizen, would be a rather curious thing to have happen. But please, don't let that bit of fact stand in your way.

...

Right now I'm struck by the thought that it feels amazingly similar to when I've debated liberals. Not to insult anyone, on either side of the aisle, but this is a rather odd thing.

Cecil Turner

I would normally go through and tear you a new one over this ridiculous assertion of yours but this once, in remembrance of posts past, I won't.

Go ahead, Ed, I can take it. I didn't think it needed explanation to show that if the US Army couldn't secure the southern border then the Border Control couldn't either. There are, of course, ways of doing it. But they mostly involve things like shooting everyone who attempts to cross pour encourager les autres. And that cure is (self-evidently, I hope) worse than the disease.

100+ divisions? I think you really need to rethink your position on this.

And I think those who share your position on this simply don't understand the scale of the problem.

And just HOW is it "counterproductive"?

Has it been "counterproductive" for Israel?

I'd submit there's just a bit of difference between an 80 mile barrier and a 2000 mile one (assuming we don't bother with the North). As to how it can be counterproductive, it is certain to alienate the governments and people affected by it (and unlike the Israelis, I don't think the majority currently want us "wiped off the map"). I'm thinkin' it won't work. And the failure would be costly . . . in more than one way.

ed

Hmmm.

@ boris

Israel went with a fence and they were being attacked.

There's a connection you might want to consider.

There's 10+ to 25+ million illegal aliens who owe loyalty to nations that might be inimical to America and who have their own agenda about "taking back" southwest America in a civil war. Including many people from heavily socialist nations and who have a long history of domestic terrorism, separatism, murder, rape, robbery and gang violence.

There's a connection you might want to consider.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ boris

Dunno ed, sounds a little kooky, in a kinky sort of way.

Most people would merely assume the metaphorical since this is a discussion over politics.

Then again, you're not most people are you boris?

boris

nope just myself

boris

have their own agenda about "taking back" southwest America in a civil war

Flying planes into buildings yet? No ?

Kinda would like to handle the bigger problem for now. Seems you want to bail on that one over your own agenda. If we can't count on you for the big one, don't expect much help with yours.

ed

Hmmm.

@ Cecil Turner

1.

Go ahead, Ed, I can take it.

Let's both hope it doesn't come to that.

2.

I didn't think it needed explanation to show that if the US Army couldn't secure the southern border then the Border Control couldn't either.

Your mistake was/is in assuming that the organization used in heavy combat between divisional forces would apply to safeguarding a national border with a putative ally/neutral.

In such an instance the military forces deployed would use electronic surveillance gear to maintain a watch along with roving patrols, preset guard towers and fast reaction forces, both airborne and ground mobile to make arrests and/or provide heavy firepower if needed. The UAVs would be under centralised control but the roving patrols and guard towers would be relegated to local forces.

Or they could just, I dunno, hire contractors and not bother military forces for such a ridiculously mundane thing.

3.

And that cure is (self-evidently, I hope) worse than the disease.

Amazingly enough if the immigration laws we currently have were enforced, the borders secured and illegals were discouraged from even trying, then I guess we wouldn't have to shoot quite so many.

Particularly if we adopt the policy of arresting illegals attempting entry into America rather than shooting them outright.

It's a novel concept I agree, but it does have possibilities.

4.

And I think those who share your position on this simply don't understand the scale of the problem.

And I think you've been vastly exaggerating the "scale of the problem" in order to supporting a losing position.

There is no "scale of the problem". Well there isn't as long as you don't try and push the idiotic nonsense about needing 100+ divisions.

5.

I'd submit there's just a bit of difference between an 80 mile barrier and a 2000 mile one (assuming we don't bother with the North).

Yes. It's longer.

6.

As to how it can be counterproductive, it is certain to alienate the governments and people affected by it ...

I'll stand heartbroken by the antipathy of those that sought to exploit American wealth for their own purposes.

7.

(and unlike the Israelis, I don't think the majority currently want us "wiped off the map")

Evidently you haven't been listening to Chavez.

8.

I'm thinkin' it won't work. And the failure would be costly . . . in more than one way.

And what way is that? It's nice that you end on a overly dramatic note, but that doesn't really impress you know.

So Mexico get's pissed off. So what? Mexico has never, not once, ever supported America in the UNSC. Or in the General Assembly. Or in any treaty dispute. Or in any dispute. Or in any disagreement.

I think I can live with irritating Mexico. What? Like they'd stop supporting us? Where?

But in any event please outline why:

I'm thinkin' it won't work. And the failure would be costly . . . in more than one way.

Inquiring minds want to know.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ boris

nope just myself

And a good thing that is. If it weren't, I'd be worried.

ed

Hmmm.

@ boris

1.

Flying planes into buildings yet? No ?

Not yet. But if you feel that humorous about this then I'd suggest going to the gangland areas in Los Angeles that are saturated with illegals and shout out "F**k Mexico! Citizens of Mexico are cowardly assholes!"

Make a video of it.

2.

Kinda would like to handle the bigger problem for now.

Ahh the one so big that everybody must support Republicans, but yet not so big that it doesn't require actually securing the country?

I wonder what Bush will call it ...

3.

eems you want to bail on that one over your own agenda.

No. I just don't believe that it's a leash that can control me.

Want me to take you seriously? Then show me that you're serious about it by securing the borders. Because if it's not so dangerous that it doesn't require securing the borders, then it's not dangerous enough for me to abandon my principles.

4.

If we can't count on you for the big one, don't expect much help with yours.

Well you're in a bit of luck there!

You haven't been much help with illegal aliens.

Isn't that wonderful!?

A synchronicity of cross-purposes.

ed

Hmmm.

Well I'm off to eat dinner. Might check back, might not. Cya tomorrow.

boris

ho hum

Cecil Turner

Or they could just, I dunno, hire contractors and not bother military forces for such a ridiculously mundane thing.

Sooner or later we have to actually catch the ones who don't decide to cooperate. And then repeat the process at a more efficient rate than the crossers (and, considering the current catch-and-release policy, they have to catch the same ones until they decide to quit). I don't see a way to do it, even if they didn't have help and legal crossing methods prone to abuse (i.e., overstayed visas). And our UAV's are already overtasked by a factor of two or so. Again, I think you understate the problem.

Particularly if we adopt the policy of arresting illegals attempting entry into America rather than shooting them outright.

Okay, but what're you going to do with 'em? Keeping them locked up gets a bit expensive.

I'll stand heartbroken by the antipathy of those that sought to exploit American wealth for their own purposes.

If Mexican authorities start providing safe haven for terrorists, we'll turn our putative security issue into a very real one. I'd recommend we don't start down that path.

lurker

1. One problem with border control has to do with city, state, and federal government. Who owns the primary responsibility of border control and patrol?

2. Hhhmmm...the Senate passed the bill to have a fence built but a month later voted against the budget to finance the building of the fence. But then a month later again, they finally voted to finance it. Wishy-washy.

3. Accomplishments?

- tax cuts
- country made more secure
- democracy slowly spreading to the rest of the world.
- new jobs
- economy booming
- Federal Deficits going down drastically, faster than predicted and soon we'll see surpluses.

4. For those Republicans that don't care or staying at home in November will be seeing the democrats going through the impeachment process.

Two reasons I'm voting Republicans: 1) Prevent the democrats from gaining majority of the House and Senate so that there will be no impeachment process. The Fitz process was a lot of money and time wasted. The impeachment process will be a lot of time and money wasted; thereby, preventing Bush from focusing on his job and duties as the US president. 2) Supreme Court nominations.

Will Bush get anything significant done between 06 and 08? Doubtful. Why? Because neither the House and Senate will have the significant conservative majority in spite of the party affiliation. The House and Senate will still have too many moderates to get any bills passed.

lurker

If I understand Bush's guest worker program, it was designed to get more illegal immigrants to become US citizens in a legal way.

At the Texas state Republican convention, there was alot of talk about securing our borders in any way how.

First thing is to secure our borders in all four directions.

Second thing is to address those illegal immigrants that are already here.

And it has to be done in this order. Any other way will not solve the problem.

lurker

"Or they could just, I dunno, hire contractors and not bother military forces for such a ridiculously mundane thing."

Contractors cost far more than military and police forces. So are you willing to pay more?

Our border patrol units need to be armed as well.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ Cecil Turner

1.

Sooner or later we have to actually catch the ones who don't decide to cooperate.

Yes. This is called enforcement of immigration laws. It might even require the passing of more effective immigration laws. It might require passing laws that would require state and local authorities to enforce immigration laws.

Where there's a will, there's a way. It's just not certain that the way to a will is via the Republican party. At least not a Republican party as it is currently composed where the politicians within the party feel that they can run roughshod over conservative values.

2.

And then repeat the process at a more efficient rate than the crossers (and, considering the current catch-and-release policy, they have to catch the same ones until they decide to quit).

Well I'd say putting in a significant physical barrier, a fence, would be something that would help improve efficiency. Additionally other laws that would include chargebacks to Mexico for the cost of deporting illegals, say $50,000 USD per illegal, would give Mexico a serious incentive to deal with the crisis on their side rather then publishing "how to" booklets on violating American laws.

I'd also say that implementing a specific judicial court and process where evidence of the illegal's border crossing is presented. If the illegal cops a plea, then it's a 25-year sentence in a federal work camp with automatic probation once the illegal is deported. If the illegal challenges and wants a court date, then upon conviction the sentence is an automatic 25-year sentence with no probation whatsoever.

If the illegal that chose the plea agreement tries to re-enter the US at any point during this probationary period, then the full effect of the original sentence comes into play with the illegal automatically going into a federal work camp.

A federal work camp is simply a triple fenced are with tents where the convicted illegals spend their time. With the adjective "work" being optional.

And, of course, that $50,000 USD chargeback to Mexico, or Canada, funding the process. The more illegals cross, the higher the tariffs are on all products manufactured or *imported* through Mexico.

3.

I don't see a way to do it, even if they didn't have help and legal crossing methods prone to abuse (i.e., overstayed visas).

Overstaying visas is something else that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps, again, through a system of chargebacks against the offending country. A possible way to deal with this is to immediately put out a warrant for the arrest of these people, place a bounty on their heads that will eventually be charged back to the originating country, and leaving it to private enterprise.

4.

And our UAV's are already overtasked by a factor of two or so. Again, I think you understate the problem.

Domestic production of UAVs is saturated. But America isn't the only source of UAVs and the world production isn't saturated with orders. The Israeli's would be delighted to sell us $1 billion worth of UAVs.

5.

Okay, but what're you going to do with 'em? Keeping them locked up gets a bit expensive.

Well I outlined the federal work camp thing. So the cost can be, like everything else, charged back to Mexico, as an example. The accumulated cost of trying and imprisoning or deporting the illegal would be borne entirely by the offending country. If they don't like then they can take the necessary steps on their side of the border to secure them.

6.

If Mexican authorities start providing safe haven for terrorists, we'll turn our putative security issue into a very real one. I'd recommend we don't start down that path.

Ahhh. Once in America there was "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute!".

Now it's "Please please please please don't piss off the Mexicans or they'll ally with AQ!"

Frankly I don't think for a moment that you really regard this as a threat. And I also don't think so little of you that I'd believe that you'd kowtow to Mexico City under this threat.

But it is frankly unacceptable that you'd try and use such a silly assertion to win a debate.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ lurker

Contractors cost far more than military and police forces. So are you willing to pay more?

You are aware, I hope, that due to benefits, associated costs and higher pay a single private in the US military costs upwards of $100,000 USD per year right?

Our border patrol units need to be armed as well.

Well amazingly enough contracted private corporations can provide armed guards. Or we could expand the Border Patrol. I imagine quite a few veterans of Iraq would be interested in such work because it would fall in line with the skills they accumulated in Iraq. And because quite a few ex-soldiers end up doing some security work. I know I did for a few years after leaving the USMC.


ed

Hmmm.

@ lurker

I'm not sure but I think this is directed at me. I'll post a reply under that assumption, but if I'm wrong please let me know.

1.

One problem with border control has to do with city, state, and federal government. Who owns the primary responsibility of border control and patrol?

To my knowledge control over the nation's borders has always been primarily a federal function. Individual states can elect to do additional patrols of their borders, but that is more optional than mandatory.

However I think a more unified process where state and federal authorities coordinate their guarding of the patrols would be a good idea. And including local and city authorities in tracking down illegal aliens within the nation's borders would be a great idea.

2.

... But then a month later again, they finally voted to finance it. Wishy-washy.

That's not the only problem. Just because they funded it this year, though the corresponding funding bill from the House hasn't been approved yet (to my knowledge though I could be wrong) doesn't mean that Congress is under any real obligation to continue funding the effort in subsequent years.

Congress uses this mechanism to delay or eliminate projects that they really don't want to have happen. So they approve funding to start a project and then, once the cameras and lights are off, reduce or eliminate funding and thereby eliminate the project without openly eliminating it.

Another technique is to provide funding for a project and then tacking on a separate project or requirement that has higher precedence than the original funding. Due to the demands of Congress then the funding for the original project gets diverted to this second project while the first gets starved of funds and is never completed.

3.

Accomplishments?

>- tax cuts

Which are not permanent thus are useful as a campaigning issue every couple years. It's the classic carrot-and-stick. Vote for Republicans and get the carrot. Don't and get the stick.

>- country made more secure

Are you forgetting the borders issue?

>- democracy slowly spreading to the rest of >the world.

Really? Where? Ukraine is falling under the sway of Russia. Lebanon is hardly a democracy when there's a shadow government in place in a parasitical relationship. Egypt isn't a real democracy and neither is Pakistan. Iraq is a democracy but only because we're still providing the firepower at present so it's not an independent democracy.

Where is democracy spreading? It's not enough to have voting. Hell under that definition Zimbabwe is a democracy when it's a dictatorship in all but name.

So are you going for the superficial or the substantive?

>- new jobs

That generally comes from an expanding economy.

>- economy booming

Which actually has little to do wih Bush's tax cuts. Like in the latter part of the 1990's Bush, like Clinton, is the happy recipient of an uncontrollable economic engine. In Clinton's case it was the ramping up to the internet bubble where there was a massive temporary shifting of wealth which boosted the economy and raised tax revenues. Right up until the bubble burst.

Bush is now the happy recipient of the housing bubble. The economic progress we've seen has little to do with the tax cuts but far more to do with heavily discounted interest rates that spawned an overly speculative housing market and a vast infusion of liquid cash by refinancing of mortagages.

Compared to the trillions of dollars in wealth, and tax revenues, generated by the housing market the tax cuts are hardly even a fart in a hurricane.

>- Federal Deficits going down drastically, >faster than predicted and soon we'll see >surpluses.

Yes, see my previous points for an explanation. Though the part about the "surpluses" is very premature since this Republican lead Congress is hardly one for fiscal restraint.

4.

For those Republicans that don't care or staying at home in November will be seeing the democrats going through the impeachment process.

For which they will pay a very heavy political price.

Though I have stated in the past that I wouldn't be all that opposed to an impeachment process over the President's absolute and utter failure to secure this nation's borders.

Which is his job, particularly in wartime.

5.

1) Prevent the democrats from gaining majority of the House and Senate so that there will be no impeachment process.

More power to you.

6.

The Fitz process was a lot of money and time wasted.

Yet all that money wasted by Fitz doesn't equal the amount wasted by Congress on earmarks for one single day.

7.

thereby, preventing Bush from focusing on his job and duties as the US president.

Personally he hasn't been doing all that great a job lately. He, and Condi Rice, were the ones that pressured Israel to stop too early. So I really don't know if I'd put much stock in this.

8.

2) Supreme Court nominations.

It's extremely unlikely that Bush would get another SCOTUS nomination. And of course there always is the spectre of another Harriet Miers or some other clone of Sandra Day O'Connor.

9.

Will Bush get anything significant done between 06 and 08? Doubtful.

I'd agree.

10.

Why? Because neither the House and Senate will have the significant conservative majority in spite of the party affiliation. The House and Senate will still have too many moderates to get any bills passed.

Yet I'm supposed to vote Republican for this?

11.

If I understand Bush's guest worker program, it was designed to get more illegal immigrants to become US citizens in a legal way.

Yes. That's called "amnesty". And it's definitely something I oppose bitterly.

12.

At the Texas state Republican convention, there was alot of talk about securing our borders in any way how.

And Texas doesn't even have the severity of California's problems with illegals. Or, IMHO, New Jersey.

13.

And it has to be done in this order. Any other way will not solve the problem.

Yup. Which is why I've been pushing for a fence and better patrolling of the border.

boris

why I've been pushing for a fence

Unless you're going to build it yourself you might want to learn how to work with others.

Bart K

"At this point, Tradesports has the Reps with a 47% probability of retaining control of the House"

Just to say thanks to Tom for commenting on our market. We appreciate it.

PeterUK

Who is doing this bvloody irritating mmmmmming?

graywolf

Let the Dems take the House.
After 2 years of their antics and treason, 2008 might very well permanently bury them.

If not, as de Tocqueville said:
"People get the government they deserve."

Tom Maguire

And they haven't banned fluoridation either, so our precious bodily fluids are being poisoned and look - not at my ears stupid - at this big chart showing how the country is almost bankrupt and pretty soon birds won't even sing anymore.

Waves of nostalgia and peals of laughter. 1992 seems so far away...

I would normally go through and tear you a new one over this ridiculous assertion of yours but this once, in remembrance of posts past, I won't.

Laughter only.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ Tom Maguire

Laughter only.

I don't get it.

Are you laughing at Cecil Turner's assertion that it would take 100+ divisions to patrol the southern border, with each division fixed firmly in place along every 30km of border?

Or are you trying to say you're laughing at me because I was ready to tear Cecil Turner a new asshole over a subject he knows absolutely nothing about?

*shrug* hey if you want in on the fight, there's plenty of room.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ boris

Unless you're going to build it yourself you might want to learn how to work with others.

I've been working with others for years now. Hasn't worked.

So I'm trying a sharp stick in the rump.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ PeterUK

Who is doing this bvloody irritating mmmmmming?

Ahhh. Success again!

Hmmmmmm.

JM Hanes

Time Magazine has just done a profile of Nancy Pelosi. Bookmark it for use next time someone brings up the President's promise to be a uniter not a divider.

JM Hanes

ed:

"So I'm trying a sharp stick in the rump."

Sharpen stick! Thump chest! That's the ticket.

ed

Hmmmm.

@ JM Hanes

Sharpen stick! Thump chest! That's the ticket.

Well it hasn't escalated yet to the "Thump chest!" phase, but that might be next.

After that is the dreaded "Flinging poo!" phase, and that's nothing that anybody would care to experience.

lol.

*shrug* the Republican party seems to be absolutely set on granting some form of amnesty. That's something I absolutely oppose.

So we'll all see what happens over the next few years.

Mic

Well, let's see...

There are waaaaaaaay too many illegals here already, therefore there's no way we can administer the judicious application of standing statute or historical precedence in order to deal with the problem, so we're simply not going to do anything. In fact, let 'em keep coming. We'll just stuff 'em into our social programs, criminal justice and health care systems. Yeah, that's it! No one will notice the 20 million or so non-English speaking foreigners who have no intention of assimilating into our society, will make every effort to send dollars out of our economy in order to support another and who's first allegiance is to a nation other than the United States...

Yeah, right. If you're a Republican who's stupid enough to drink that KoolAid, then your stupid enough to be a Democrat!

Larry

New Guy, look at total federal debt from the Bureau of the Public Debt. Which of the years in Clinton's administration was the budget in surplus?

09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

sophy

Please do not hesitate to have knight gold . It is funny.

cheap eve isk

If you have cheap eve isk, you can upgrade!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame