Of course, I'd probably be "racist" or some other firecracker word. 
Posted on 05/10/2006 7:15:13 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
Disaffection over spending and immigration have caused conservatives to take flight from President Bush and the Republican Congress at a rapid pace in recent weeks, sending Bush's approval ratings to record lows and presenting a new threat to the GOP's 12-year reign on Capitol Hill, according to White House officials, lawmakers and new polling data.
Bush and Congress have suffered a decline in support from almost every part of the conservative coalition over the past year, a trend that has accelerated with alarming implications for Bush's governing strategy.
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and an abandonment of core conservative principles more generally.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over the their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict gay marriage and to put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically and collapsed in places.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You smear Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo and those who put a conservative in office, and support his conservative values.
You're a conservative?
You bet. You on the other hand are a groupie.
This wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for tancredo's hypocrisy. He is the one who brands such people as farmers and contractors as evil, while using illegal labor to build his basement theater.
Also tancredo has never worked in a wealth creating field, he's always worked in the public sector(Dep. Of Education, legislator) or in a non-wealth creating think tank and the vast majority of his career has been in the public sector.
I would never have know you were. And I would have thought you're the groupie...you and your group keep bringing up Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo.
I just keep trying to talking about the immigration law, the breaking of which is a felony.
most definitely contemptible!
For sure, Jim--though that puts it far too mildly, for my sense of things.
Traitorously, hellaciously evil after the manner of Machiavelli, Stalin etc. seems more accurate, to me.
Yep and according to how Judge nicmarlo interprets immigration law Tancredo is a felon. See reason and logic. It is a conservative trait. You may wish to try it sometime.
.....people breaking the law and justifying their or their groupies' felonious actions.
Exactly!
Jim: Those of you who are willing to install the Democrats are being used.
And hoodwinked, deluded, snowed and otherwise neutered.
No, see, you got this all wrong. You and sinkspur claimed that you knowingly hired illegals. And then not only bragged about it, but encourage others to do that. That's commission of felonies, something I wouldn't do, brag about doing, or encourage others to do. Why? Because it's against the law.
Federal Law--Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
"A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he: assists an illegal alien she/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
ILLEGAL HIRING:
Section 1324a states: "Any person who knowingly hires/harbors/transports any illegal alien is guilty of a felony punishable by 10 years jail + $2000 fine per illegal alien + forfeiture of the vehicle or property used to commit the crime".
"An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts.(10) Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer, that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer’s work force.(11) Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual’s accent or foreign appearance. Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien workforce of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred.(12)ARTICLE 100(10)8 CFR 274a.1(l).
(11)8 CFR 274a.1(l)(1).
(12)Seven Star Inc. v. U.S., 933 F. 2d 791 (9th Cir., 1991).
Section 100.10 Criminal solicitation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal solicitation in the second degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a class A felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct.Criminal solicitation in the second degree is a class D felony.
In addition to the federal statutes....state laws and local ordinances controlling fair labor practices, workers compensation, zoning, safe housing and rental property, nuisance, licensing, street vending, and solicitations by contractors may also apply to activities that involve illegal aliens.
I see. So Tancredo didn't become the least bit suspicious when all he heard in the Rec Room was Spanish and radios playing La Cuukaracha? Poor old Tom he never had a clue. But then again he still doesn't. I would vote for him though because I don't really consider him a criminal like you do.
Does whatever the person Tom Tancredo did or does nullify the law's existence or intent? It does not, ergo, yet again your point is moot.
Peggy Noonan?
Oh, Dear. What happened to her. Did she look Shrillery in the eye and get possessed? What a tragedy!
Sigh.
No, I am saying that your idiotic interpretation of the law is what makes it moot. Neither Sinkspur nor Tancredo gave one cent to an illegal. They gave the money to the contractor. That contractor was the one that broke the law. Is it even remotley possible that you are getting the picture here?
Yeah, you cannot get good American workers when you pay them $5 per hour.
[sinkspur:]I also have a maid who, I suspect, is illegal. She does a better job than the Anglo maid I had to fire (for not showing up when she said she would), for the same money, and I don't have to listen to constant complaining.
The same money? $3 per hour?
You will get your wish. The value of the dollar is now sliding. This has the effect of making everything America has to sell, including labor itself, cheaper on the world market. Yes, Americans will be paid what traditionalists would consider a "decent US wage", $15/hr or more. But the dollar itself is now adjusting itself down in the world market to make that $15 worth the same $3 that Indians and Chinese are getting.
Another point that you just don't seem to get, the law does not distinguish between persons when it is applied. The commission of a felony occurs when, irrespective of the person, a person or group "knowingly" or "reasonable should have known" that they were disobeying a particular law. For as many years as you two have been posting on these threads, neither of you can claim ignorance of what the laws state.
Yet another point on yet another argument: it appears from some people's logic that because people break these laws, the law is invalid simply because some justification is given, such as a magic threshold has been reached, or because a friend did it, or because it benefits someone personally, or because someone in Congress may have done it, or whatever other reason is proffered.
And finally, stating any of those kinds of justifications to a judge, about any crime committed, would get you laughed out of court.
Of course, I'd probably be "racist" or some other firecracker word.
Look Einstein, it is a 90% probability that if you hire a contractor in the South or Southwest he is going to be using illegals. I know it, Sinkspur knows it and that paragon of Conservative values Tom Tancredo knows. He didn't ask, I didn't ask and I am sure Sinkspur didn't ask since it was not our legal responsibility to do so.
You're nasty, brutish, and short. And your mother never really loved you.
"a 90% probability that if you hire a contractorin the South or Southwest he is going to be using illegals......."
Woud fall under this category:
"An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts.(a)
Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where
(3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer’s work force.(b) Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual’s accent or foreign appearance. Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien workforce of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred.(c)
(a)8 CFR 274a.1(l).
(b)8 CFR 274a.1(l)(1).
(c)Seven Star Inc. v. U.S., 933 F. 2d 791 (9th Cir., 1991).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.