Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 20 May 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 20 May 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; Paul Hays, former House reading clerk.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., presidential candidate; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Douglas Brinkley, editor of President Ronald Reagan's diaries; Michael Deaver, Reagan's deputy chief of staff; Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; military historian Fred Kagan; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

THIS WEEK (ABC): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; talk show host Rachael Ray.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla.; Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, presidential candidate; Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution; Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[txradioguy]

We have a Republican who has never fully embraced the Conservative principles completely.

I think after November...the Republicans are scared to death of the Democrat attack and smear machine and will sign on by and large to whatever they need to in order to avoid the attacks and hold onto their office.

W doesn’t care...he’s not up for re-election next year. He’s trying to build some kind of immediate legacy because the cornerstone of his Presidency...defending this country after 9/11 is having poop slung on it by the Left.

Who is the odd man out? IMHO it will be W and the Republicans backing this lipsticked pig.

They never expected the opposition to it...just as they misunderestimated the opposition to the last time they tried to sneak this through.

[kabar]

That is such a great solution, just raise the price of labor. Where have we always heard that solution?? Put those evil mill owners out of business for the good of the worker. Worked great for the auto industry.

Nonsense. We are a sovereign nation. Workers from other countries should not be allowed to come here and work without some sort of controls. I guess if it were up to you, we would have open borders and allow the free flow of labor from Mexico into the US. It won't be the other way around.

Bottom line is there are no good solutions and is why so much of the lumber industry is heading to China. Should make all you “conservatives” happy. You conservatives sound more Marxist all the time. Another reason I left the conservative movement.

Using your logic, the lumber industry should go to China. It is cheaper and more profitable for the mill owners who can set up their mills there and cheaper for the consumers who will get cheaper products.

[MNJohnnie]

There is a difference between being the aggressor and responding to an aggressor.

There is a certain segment of Freepers with a Messiah complex who rush around the board screaming hate at anyone who does not mindlessly worship their pet dogmas. When they come here and start going after the long time Freepers, who are regulars of this thread, with their usual hyper emotional ranting and foaming at the mouth bile, they should expect to get it shoved right back at them.

This is a serious thread. It is for serious discussions of issues. It is not one of the ranters "choir practice" threads where the Always Whining losers sit around an mindlessly scream at each other how dogmatically pure and brilliant they are.

If they come to this thread and act like adults, they will get treated like adults. However, since they decided today to come here and act like punks, they got treated like punks.

The choice is theirs.

[tiredoflaundry]

Too funny! LGF took a page out of Mark Levin’s “Guide to Polling”!!

[Chuck54]

Why? I voted for him twice, without hesitation.

I'm sure the same could be said for most of the posters and lurkers on this site.

However you seem to be the only one to continually refer to President George W. Bush as Jorge.

...and I might add you do so in a most disrespectful manner.

[snugs]

This is exactly what has happened to the British manufacturing (engineering) companies including the one I work for the work has gone to China.

In my company’s case we set up a joint venture company in China and we get a great deal of the fabs and even some complete machines made at our Shanghai factory.

This of course has benefited our company but not the UK job market. In our case it has not affected the balance of payments because we are virtually 100 per cent export so the goods are coming in at low value and being exported at a much higher value but if we were selling on the home market it would of course.

[kabar]

Agreed and this issue transcends partisan politics. I have concern about the political impact, i.e., increasing the number of Dem voters making us a permanent minority, but I am more concerned about the long term effect upon our economy, national identity and shared sense of endeavor. We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

Also, a lot of these earnings are being sent out of the country, over $20 billion a year to Mexico, exceeding their revenue from oil sales, and don't benefit the US economy. The low wages also depress American wages at the lower end of the income scale, thus increasing the wealth gap and reducing the middle class. If it continues, we will have the profile of a third world country.

[MNJohnnie]

I am sorry but your offerings on this thread today have not reached the very minimum level of intellectual coherence that are the barest standards acceptable to Conservatives thinkers.

If at some point either of you actually achieve sentient and can finally express a coherent rational thought please do try again.

However, since that level of minimum attainment is obviously far beyond your current state of evolutionary development, we suggest you wait at lest one or two millennium before you try again.

In our judgment, based on reading your postings today, it is fairly obvious that both of you have at this time only achieved the same sentient level any parrot in a pet store can demonstrates.

[gpapa]

snugs, it is cheaper to export jobs to other countries than to hire illegal aliens to perform the same work in the USA. I would imagine the same situation exists in the UK. I can tell you here in Southern California there is downward pressure on wages by immigrants, legal or illegal, as my construction electrician son can attest to first hand.

[FreeReign]

Not to argue but to make a point. If high crimes and misdemeanors were true, Bill Clinton would have been convicted in the US Senate. The standard, right or wrong, was changed because of the Andrew Johnson impeachment which used the standard of a crime being committed, and not bad behavior as the founding fathers intended or the Federalist Papers explained.

The Constitution states that the absence of "good behavior" is a reason for the impeachment of judges. As I stated above, and as I'm sure you know, the Constitution says something totally different for the reasons why a president can be impeached.

Why, if the intent of the founding fathers was to have "bad behavior" as a reason for the impeachment of a president, did they not specifically say so as they did for judges?

And, what evidence does the Federalist Papers give to support your point and to contradict the plain language of the Constitution?

[snugs]

To an extent that is true but there are also companies that do not want to move their factories outside the UK and they are the ones who use immigrants legal or otherwise paying them the bare minimum they can get away with.

People complain in the UK that the work is going to these people and not indigenous population but the bottom line is they would not work for that money or do the repetitive job day in day out.

We are therefore forced to use this type of labour or the business has to relocate.

I and many are not happy about it but at the end of the day are we prepared to pay more, companies make less profit and somehow make the job more interesting. Two of the 3 might be possible but the third is not.

[txradioguy]

” As I stated above, and as I’m sure you know, the Constitution says something totally different for the reasons why a president can be impeached.”

Yes and you still ahvent given any valid reason as to why the President should be impeached.

[bray]

So what do you do when you run out of American workers?? With 4% unemployment/FULL EMPLOYMENT, where do you find more workers?? Do you still send the 10 million employed back to Mexico? Do you close those businesses who use them like Walmart??

Pray for W and Our Troops

[poinq]

can we send out our dirty dishes and unmowed lawns to other countries for cleaning and mowing?

[kabar]

I haven't seen the bill yet, but from what I heard, there is no increase in "citizenship" or green card quotas in the bill and they would all have to go to the end of the line.

Here is a draft of the bill. I have gone through quickly the 326 pages. There are increases in various catergories of immigration including citizenship and green card quotas in the future. That really isn't as important as the fact that the Y visa[400,000 a year guest worker program] and Z visa holders [the 12 to 20 million illegals] will be able to bring in their spouses and children, and in the case of Z visa holders, their parents. The HIB visa quota has been increased from 65,000 to 115,000 in 2008 and eventually to 180,000. [Page 217}

The Dream Act has also been incorporated into the bill. [Page 295]. SS cards will be issued to Z-visa holders. {page 292}

From what I've heard, my criticism of the bill is that the illegal aliens would get to jump the visa line, which would be a disadvantage to those who wait for a visa to come into this country. This precedent would only encourage more to come here illegally.

Anyone here is automatically given legalized status so they don't need a visa. They can also travel back and forth to their home countries.

[txradioguy]

“Do you still send the 10 million employed back to Mexico?”

Yes because those 10 million illegals aren’t being counted as EMPLOYED the unemployment figures come out every month...not unless their boss has a death wish for his business.

That full employment figure you toss out there is not counting the illegals who largely get paid under the table with cash.

[txradioguy]

oops...kabar that last post of mine should have included you.

[angkor]

The bill or some version of it is out there on thomas.loc.gov, I was reading it this morning but don’t have the URL. Some of the blogs have posted links, and also some other FR threads.

It is dense reading, but so far as I could tell it allows for immediate conditional approval to anyone who applies for the Z1 visa.

In the application you must demonstrate work, here before Jan 1 2007, the $1,000 fine (and $4,000 more over six years), and no criminal record. That makes virtually all of our 15 million “undocumented workers” eligible.

Again, you are “protected” by the Z1 the moment you apply (this is normal CIS policy, there is a grace period once you send any immigration application).

Once the app is approved you can then apply for your parents and spouse under the Z2 visa, and your children under the Z3. Let’s say the average applicant has two parents, wife, and 1.5 children. We then have 15 million x 5.5 applications = 82.5 million potential applicants for the Z visas. Even if you whack those numbers in half it’s substantially more than the 15 million that proponents like to cite.

Goes without saying that elderly parents and young children will be net users of public benefits (particularly school and medical). Given the underskilled and undereducated profile of our new guest worker population, you can expect their federal tax contributions to be extremely small, if anything.

[FreeReign]

(post #297)there is no Constitutional basis for impeachment of the President based on bad legislation.

Yes and you still ahvent given any valid reason as to why the President should be impeached.

Huh, what?

I never said that this president should be impeached.

You're confused.

[brydic1]

“brat” “petulant child” “idiot” “intellectual infantile” and a “punk”

Question for you. I notice that you and I collectively have been called all of the above names today by MNJohnnie. Not sure what definition of abuse is as I never engage in that sort of language with anyone. However, I wonder if this should or should not be reported to the Administrator.