I’m off on politics for a while

The Anchoress Blog ^ | 5/12/06 | The Anchoress

[M. Thatcher]

polite conversation

I don't think many are guilty of that.

Hence, the Anchoress’s point.

[Havoc]

The problem here is that Immigration has become such an issue because it is being used as a multipronged attack directly upon Every American. Between the use of Illegal labor, Imported labor (H1 & L1 visa), and moving our jobs to other countries altogether, the three fronts are destroying job/income opportunities for the largely unskilled workforce in America. High paying jobs are being destroyed or exported then replaced by lower paying jobs. The wage on the lower paying jobs is further driven down by the presence of illegals. Bush, via trade and immigration policy, has fostered the utter subversion of the US economic system for the profit of a few. But, Immigration also sits in the national security camp for some, which grows the level of outrage.

How one can sit and ask "why" this is an issue is so out of touch as to need their head examined. On the other hand, the politicians seem to sit squarely in that camp. They also don't get why they're losing their base on both sides of the isle. This is called "ripeness" for a third party bid. You get a third party in there saying publically what I just said and they'll landslide it.

[M. Thatcher]

You get a third party in there saying publically what I just said and they'll landslide it.

"We did this...once before, in 1992, didn’t we? How’d that work out for you?"

[BJungNan]

I’ve decided that if I’m going to keep blogging, I’m going to have to leave off writing or reading about politics for a little while, because it’s all making me sick.

Like anything, you have to take a vacation, a break from it.

On the local level we have been going at it hard and heavy for nearly a year.

We made a lot of progress but the problems are really entrenched and it is hard to keep up the fight. I found myself getting so upset over it I had to take a break.

[Havoc]

No, we didn't, exactly. The candidate got scared out of the race at the latter end and came back into it after the leaving
dissillusioned his support and scattered much of it back to where it came from. In the face of that, he garnered 19% of the vote. After killing his support, he got 19%. Selective memory seems to pervade this forum on this issue.

[M. Thatcher]

The point stands. Voting third party is voting Democrat. Works every time it's tried.

[nopardons]

Great blog article; thanks for posting it!

[nopardons]

Clinton sent voter registration and voter cards to thousands of ILLEGALS !

Don 't cherry-pick history, in order to prove your spurious agenda.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks so much for the ping!!!

[Old_Mil]

I think for the summer, my little boat will sail in the other direction.

Ran into the English fleet, did you? Regarding your comments if the difference between 2006, 1996, and 1986 isn't immediately obvious to you when you go out on the street during rush hour, when you pay your taxes, when you try and reconcile your checkbook, and so on...what more can be said?

[M. Thatcher]

Ran into the English fleet, did you? Regarding your comments if the difference between 2006, 1996, and 1986 isn't immediately obvious to you when you go out on the street during rush hour, when you pay your taxes, when you try and reconcile your checkbook, and so on...what more can be said?

I posted the article. Did not write it. Do not understand your comment. What more can be said?

[Havoc]

Same old scare tactic tune played every election in hopes we'll all buy it again. Tired tune. That was the lesson of 92, fyi. That is why both parties have done everything to keep a third party off the platform with them in debate. It's why their legislation still favors the incumbents. Rather than do the right thing, the party thinks the scare tactic will work yet again. Ya'll have learned absolutely nothing.
Or, you've learned and can't afford people believing they can get away with it and acting in favor of a third party.. vested interest thing and all..

The problem here is that this dance takes two. You can't blame voters for what your own party causes. You have to accept responsibility and act at some point. If you don't, you get booted out. And that's where we are. If Dems were to get in instead of Republicans, your republican politicians are to blame - not a third party. Instead of trying to shift blame, it would serve you to own it and do something about it.. offering substance instead of tokens and scare tactics. Everyone has had it to the teeth with both of the latter.

[M. Thatcher]

Noting the consequences of voting third party isn't a "scare tactic." It's history. And are utterly predictable. Talk about a "tired tune"!

[FreeReign]

Regarding your comments if the difference between 2006, 1996, and 1986 isn't immediately obvious to you when you go out on the street during rush hour, when you pay your taxes, when you try and reconcile your checkbook, and so on...what more can be said?

Why yes.

In '86 we had a no-quota's amnesty, federal spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up around 22.5%, Dandra Day O'Connor instead of Alito....

I could really go on.

[nopardons]

You need to calm down, stop posting nonsense ( the illegal alien problem was HUGE and most assuredly NOT "below the radar", when Reagan was president !), and hyperventilating; threatening to hold your breath, until you get what you want.

Such replies might make you "feel" better...as though you are "doing something"; however, in reality, it is a waste of your time and of bandwidth. It also makes you and FR look crazy.

Please learn something about what a president can and can not do. It is patently obvious, that you don't know, nor understand presidential powers and that what you really want, is a benevolent dictator, who is YOUR puppet.

[Syncro]

When I first saw the title and your name on latest posts I thought it was you too!

Glad it isn't (reasoned posters are rare these days), but this Anchoress blogger will be missed while she is gone. She's good!

Your post about the Earthquake and Geyserville was neat.

There is a Bar and Grill there I have been too a few times this year (on business of course :>) that was there even back in '06.

[Old_Mil]

In '86 we had a no-quota's amnesty,

Which Reagan regretted deeply. Instead, we are supposed to roll over and play dead for a guest worker program (do a little research and see what happened to the last temporary guest worker program. Hint: those temporary guest workers are still here. If you are a true conservative, you know that very little the government does is truly "temporary." Then again, perhaps you aren't a true conservative and this is your ultimate goal.

federal spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up around 22.5%

These percentage blips are pointless. Instead, take a look at the real problem:



Sandra Day O'Connor instead of Alito....

We would have had Harriet Meiers instead of Alito had the base heeded the doctrine of the divine right of Bush.

[Gator113]

" I can’t be the only one who is feeling increasingly ill - not ill-at-ease, but physically ill - when looking at it. "

You have no idea of how much I needed to read such a post.

You are not alone.

Thank you very much.

[Havoc]

It's a scare tactic. That is precisely why it is used and precisely why it is being used now. Perot could have won in 92 easily had he not left the race and wiped out his broad support. That is part of the lesson of 92. The other part is not for voters; but, for the GOP. Clinton is what you get when you betray your base and then scare your third party candidate out of the race.. which I actually think was the doings of both the traditional parties as a means of keeping control between them. Whether I'm right or not.. that's for history. Perot could have won. A Perot today would find himself in the same position - capable of winning. The question is, who will it be.. not if.. who.

[M. Thatcher]

Did you vote for Perot?