Can you name anything your favorite candidate has accomplished ..........

[nibor]

Please back this up with evidence. Amnesty doesn't count, because it is not a liberal or conservative debate. It has proponents and opponents on both sides of the spectrum.

In the NORTH AMERICAN UNION there will be NO AMNESTY OR REASON FOR IT because there will no longer BE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY....................BOTH SIDES ARE PUSHING US THERE!!!!!!!!!

 

[mattskramer]

Collude with some of the most notable democrats on very liberal projects over the years, and work ever closer to completely ruining the GOP.

He's about 300 delegates away from finishing the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

While generally adhering to American conservatism, McCain established a reputation as a political maverick for his willingness to defy Republican orthodoxy on several issues.

As I see it, he doesn’t mind breaking party ranks to get things done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#A_.22maverick.22_senator

 

[Paulie]

Leaving our soldiers their will cause more deaths. no reason to be there , no reason we should have went, our government carried out the 9/11 attacks to justify going into afganistan to run oil pipes from the caspian, and to control the poppy filds to pump money into wall st. (surley you dont think our CIA doest run drugs). No reason to be in iraq other than oil and halliburton/blackwater/ect profits.

While I have no doubt that the CIA is involved in drug trafficing, as that's been well documented, the rest of this post is rather vague as reasons why the govt. may have conducted 9/11.

We still haven't built that pipeline in Afghanistan that was talked about for so long, and we wouldn't need to invade Afghanistan to control the poppy output, much less stage 9/11 to justify it. And Iraq isn't just about corporate profiteering and oil. It's about maintaining US Dollar hegemony on the international market, just like pre-empting Iran, or perhaps Venezeula, would be.

 

[Detmurds]

I see it like this,...who is the lesser of the 3 evils? Enough said!

 

[JeffWartman]

I see it like this,...who is the lesser of the 3 evils? Enough said!

Then, by definition, you choose to vote for evil.

 

[nibor]

I see it like this,...who is the lesser of the 3 evils? Enough said!

Not nearly enough where we're headed....................maybe NONE OF THE ABOVE APPLIES

 

[-Cp]

leaving them over there will create much more death the intel to thwart 911 was amply but ignored
we create new terrorist everyday in response to our terrorism
why do we invade two sovereign nations for the supposed actions of 18 Arabs

Wow.. who let the nuts outta the nut-farm today?

 

[maineman]

Wow.. who let the nuts outta the nut-farm today?

how's the math problem coming?

have you cleaned your own shit from around your collar?

 

[jreeves]

Can you name anything your favorite candidate has accomplished to qualify him/her to be our next President?

Mccain has 0 dollars in earmarks....And has attempted to reach across the aisle to actually get something done in Washington which doesn't happen often lately.

 

[jreeves]

I'd have to go with leaving them there. We know for a fact that leaving them there causes them death, because they're dying there everyday.

We don't know for a fact that anyone will ever come kill anyone in this country because we pulled out. We can of course ASSUME it, but what good does that do? Right now, with our borders and ports wide open, we're vulnerable to incoming assailants.

150,000+ troops are securing a completely different country right now, while ours is more or less a sitting duck.

Can't agree with you on this one. So you believe the armed services protects from terrorism? I thought that more comes from intelligence? Let me see if we do what you say and put 150,000 troops on our border Mexico might think were invading....LOL

 

[jreeves]

Can't agree with you on this one. So you believe the armed services protects from terrorism? I thought that more comes from intelligence? Let me see if we do what you say and put 150,000 troops on our border Mexico might think were invading....LOL

I meant to say terrorism in this country...

 

[nibor]

Wrong. Amnesty DOES count. It is clearly liberal in its political idealism, no matter what other motive you wish to ascribe to it.

The wealthy corporate types, whether they label themselves conservative or liberal, being willing to sell out our nationality to line their coffers doesn't make their actions conservative in the least.

It also goes to prove that regardless what they call themselves on TV and rage at each other to keep us divided, they're as thick as thieves where collecting those dollars comes into play.

But hey, stay distracted and refuse to look at it for what it is. After all, that's exactly what they want.

I agree with almost everything you've said here................"It is clearly liberal in its political idealism, no matter what other motive you wish to ascribe to it."...................except this..................at this point, with twenty million or more in here, amnesty isn't a good blanket idea, but let's realistically discuss our options....................vaccuming them all up and forcing them back ain't happening, unless you want blood flowing everywhere because they are everywhere, North South East and West no matter who's fault it is that they're here, which runs down both ideology aisles........................we've been duped, sold out, compassionately conservatived, leaniently liberaled.............

 

[mattskramer]

Then, by definition, you choose to vote for evil.

Then wh will you vote for?

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong. Amnesty DOES count. It is clearly liberal in its political idealism, no matter what other motive you wish to ascribe to it.

I guess that makes Bush a liberal.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It is clearly liberal in its political idealism,

Please show me how this is connected to any political idealism. Short term political issue, maybe. But not idealism. There are conservatives and liberals that are in favor of some form of amnesty. The only other solution would be to round them all up. The problem is that once they are here they are afforded the right of due process. See Plyler v. Doe(1982). You simply cannot round them up and ship them back. They have rights under our Bill of Rights. This has been established and will not be changed simply beacause you say so.

Besides, why is twenty million new taxpayers so bad? If they are citizens we can tax them. I guarantee that this would "stimulate" the economy a hell of alot better than a $1200 tax rebate.

 

[Gunny]

I guess that makes Bush a liberal.

It makes Bush's policy on illegal immigration liberal.

 

[Gunny]

Please show me how this is connected to any political idealism. Short term political issue, maybe. But not idealism. There are conservatives and liberals that are in favor of some form of amnesty. The only other solution would be to round them all up. The problem is that once they are here they are afforded the right of due process. See Plyler v. Doe(1982). You simply cannot round them up and ship them back. They have rights under our Bill of Rights. This has been established and will not be changed simply beacause you say so.

Besides, why is twenty million new taxpayers so bad? If they are citizens we can tax them. I guarantee that this would "stimulate" the economy a hell of alot better than a $1200 tax rebate.

You desire I overstate the obvious? Conservative belief at its core is maintaining the status quo. Liberalism wants to change shit just to be changing shit without rhyme nor reason.

The "status quo" in this case would be enforcing our national borders and current immigration laws.

I have not stated "rounding them up and shipping them back" as a solution, nor that it should be done merely on my say-so.

Why are 20m new "taxpayers" bad? Probably because they aren't even collecting minimum wage NOW. What ACTUALLY will happen under our current system is you will make the current illegals legal, their pay will have to be bumped to minimum wage at least; which, removes their attraction as a commodity to unscrupulous employers. They get laid off and a new crop of illegals is brought in. We then end up with a situation worse than what we started with ... a 20m laid-off emplyoyes burdening the social infrastructure collecting welfare, unemployment and STILL without medical insurance.

Even if you divide that number by half, you're talking catastrophe for some areas of this nation.

 

[jillian]

You desire I overstate the obvious? Conservative belief at its core is maintaining the status quo. Liberalism wants to change shit just to be changing shit without rhyme nor reason.

The "status quo" in this case would be enforcing our national borders and current immigration laws.

I have not stated "rounding them up and shipping them back" as a solution, nor that it should be done merely on my say-so.

Why are 20m new "taxpayers" bad? Probably because they aren't even collecting minimum wage NOW. What ACTUALLY will happen under our current system is you will make the current illegals legal, their pay will have to be bumped to minimum wage at least; which, removes their attraction as a commodity to unscrupulous employers. They get laid off and a new crop of illegals is brought in. We then end up with a situation worse than what we started with ... a 20m laid-off emplyoyes burdening the social infrastructure collecting welfare, unemployment and STILL without medical insurance.

Even if you divide that number by half, you're talking catastrophe for some areas of this nation.

No liberals believe they seek change in areas where it's needed, same as conservatives like the status quo because they believe it protects the type of society they want to live in. I don't think anyone wants to either maintain status quo or change things just for the sake of it.

You made a very good observation, though. And that is, one of the reasons nothing has been done about continued illegal immigration into this country is to protect a cheap source of labor for the corporatists. Truth is, our produce and other goods, as well as services, would all cost more if illegals came out of the shadows of the underground economy and into the light of being legitimate taxpaying workers. Are Americans willing to accept those increased costs? I don't think so. They'll shop at Wal-Mart, killing the local businesses in their area in the process, and accepting cheap goods produced by children and almost slave labor, in order to save pennies.

So, what's the answer? Personally, I think that enforcement of current immigration laws would be a start. The big question is HOW do we enforce those laws without ejecting millions of people who are hard-workers, productive, raise their families here and help us get goods and services at affordable prices? I'm not sure what the answer is.. but I'm kind of liking the "virtual wall" that Arizona has started using. It's not as onerous as a wall, yet enables that State to protect itself from an influx of additional people.

I also think the debate has to change focus. Things like people running around bemoaning having to press 1 for English has a racial component that doesn't add to the debate at all and makes people who might otherwise be able to work together to solve the problem get their danders up. (I'm not saying you've taken this tack, just making the observation in general).

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The "status quo" in this case would be enforcing our national borders and current immigration laws.

Actually, "status quo" is latin for keepig the current state of affairs. The current state of affairs is obviously lax border security and illegals running amok in are streets and causing absolute pandemonium. So by the definition of the word, wouldn't the right"s position of enforcment actually be a liberal argumnent for change?

Semantics aside, the point is we absolutely need more border security. McCain's plan calls for this. However, in today's world, how do we actually secure the border?

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

I guess this doesn't apply any longer.

 

[nibor]

Actually, "status quo" is latin for keepig the current state of affairs. The current state of affairs is obviously lax border security and illegals running amok in are streets and causing absolute pandemonium. So by the definition of the word, wouldn't the right"s position of enforcment actually be a liberal argumnent for change?

Semantics aside, the point is we absolutely need more border security. McCain's plan calls for this. However, in today's world, how do we actually secure the border?

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

I guess this doesn't apply any longer.

Soon border security will mean nothing........................our borders will be Southern Mexico and Northern Canaduh.......................


ALL HAIL............................OR TRAITORS BE...................................well alrighty then............................

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA&feature=related[/ame]




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo&feature=related[/ame]