Posted on 03/30/2007 9:09:25 AM PDT by John Jorsett
Why are you afraid to say whether you support giving legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens?
Would are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House?
Wy are you afraid to say whether you have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?
Why are you afraid to say what member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration?
Giving legal status and path to citizenship are not the same thing.
For example: a guest worker with a temporary visa has legal status, but he is not on the path to citizenship. Likewise, if the illegals presently in the country are converted to guest workers, they would have legal status but would not be on the path.
I am 100% positive that you know the difference, but you borderbots have always tried to obscure that significant difference, in hopes that it would sway public opinion in your direction.
But you have failed, your 3 year campaign of lies and mis-info have not swayed public opinion in your direction. You need to come up with something new, and you need to do it quick.
Ain’t it awful! However, that’s the way is was.
Do you understand the difference between a statement and a question. When I ask whether you support giving legal status and a path to citizenship to illegal aliens it is a question, not a statement. However, I can break the single question into two questions.
Do you support giving legal status to illegal aliens?
Do you support giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship?
You stated the following: “For example: a guest worker with a temporary visa has legal status, but he is not on the path to citizenship. Likewise, if the illegals presently in the country are converted to guest workers, they would have legal status but would not be on the path.” A person that is presently in this country as guest worker with a temporary visa is completely irrelevant to my questions. My questions are about illegal aliens living in this country, not about legal guest workers.
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House?
Why are you afraid to say whether you have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?
Why are you afraid to say what member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration?
Why are you afraid to name a immigration bill that you support in the 110th Congress?
Is there a single immigration bill that you supported in the 109th Congress?
You lied when you claimed the following: “As many GOP insiders have said, if Tancredo is the face of the GOP, they are out of power for at least a generation, maybe two.” That claim was made by one person, Grover Norquist.
Michelle Malkin had the following to say about Mr. Norquist: “Norquist owes a public apology to fellow Republicans whom he has smeared as bigots for raising fundamental questions about Alamoudi and the Islamist-supporting apparatus in America. More importantly, Norquist owes answers about why he partnered with a known terrorist sympathizer, whether or not he now defends Alamoudi, when he plans to stop hiding behind the race card, and what exactly he plans to do to disavow Islamist influences.”
The campaign of lies that has come from those who support giving illegal aliens legal status and a path to citizenship has failed. The campaign to trick the American people into believing that an amnesty bill is not an amensty bill by calling it “immigration policy reform” or some other such nonsense has failed. The American people do not support giving legal status to illegal aliens and they do not support giving a path to citizenship to illegal aliens. Any bill that attempts to reward law breaking illegal aliens with legal status or a path to citizenship will fail in the House. All members of that body know that they have to face the American people in 2008 when they run for re-election.
The American people know that President Bush doesn’t need any new laws to secure this nation’s borders. The American people know that President Bush’s administration doesn’t need a single new law to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens. New laws may make border enforcement more efficient. Those would be good. New laws may make it easier to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens. Those laws would be good. The fact remains, though, that not a single new law is needed for this administration to make a serious effort to secure this nation’s borders nor is a single new law needed for this administration to make a serious effort to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens.
There’s something subtle in the analogy that I can’t quite put my finger on yet. Initial thoughts:
The Finnish military apparently was split in a manner suggesting questions as to fundamental loyalties. The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not to any particular leaders; I imagine any attempts to co-opt any fraction of our military to revolutionary causes would result in that fragment being smacked down HARD by the rest. There would truly have to be real confusion over who won a POTUS election, which I’m not sure is really possible (Gore’s tantrum notwithstanding). An outright revolt by a plainly minority party wouldn’t fly.
The core of the analogy seems to imply this scenario:
Hillary, Pelosi, et al meet their loss at the 2008 election, with a clear Republican victory sweep. No question of election results arises (a la Gore) - they just flat-out lose. Finding this situation unacceptable (Hillary because it’s now-or-never for her in the Oval Office, Pelosi because the US-Iran war is getting underway, etc.) the Democratic Party holds a “revolt or not?” vote. Stunned again, Hillary, Pelosi & Co. again find themselves in an unacceptable minority. Committed to ensconcing themselves in power, the revolting minority decides to take the Capitol at dawn Christmas Day, facilitated by their familiarity with the guards & staff and bolstered by their bodyguards. By dusk they realize: this ain’t gonna work, and proceed to talk their way out of a very awkward situation. Unfortunately, several of their winning opponents assume room temperature the same day, along with some of the entourage and perpetrators. Dismayed at the aborted (even if by choice) revolution, DUmmies and MoveOn fanatics suddenly take a liking to the 2nd Amendment and assume the role which RKBA fanatics fantasize about (guerrilla resistance against the illegitimate tyrannical administration), attempting to break the increasingly deployed military suppression of insurrection spurred by the sporadic offing of assorted elected officials. The heavily armed right-wing population, having long waited for such a situation, and much to the annoyance of the military and administration, carries out (thanks to the long neglect of the “equip and train the militia” directive in the Constitution) a poorly organized but greatly impactful response to the insurrection. As crassly put on a popular board: hilarity ensues. The few leftists both deeply committed to their cause and revolutionary leaders AND proficient in and equipped with enough firepower soon assume room temperature, though take a non-trivial number of opponents and bystanders with them; the revolution gives up.
Upshot:
A US scenario comparable to the Finnish revolution is plausible - up to a point. Once diffused shooting starts, methinks the analogy will split for two reasons:
- Hardcore leftists just don’t have the wherewithall to pull off violent revolution. A few can do it, but on the whole they just don’t have the mindset for coordinated combat.
- For each Leftist with a gun and the ability+motivation to apply it, there are 100 right-wingers ready to hunt him down.
The Left just can’t pull off a revolution in this country.
HOWEVER...throw the “Azltan” opportunists in the mix, and things could indeed get very interesting - in the Chinese curse sort of way.
Whatever happens, the next several years will be rough ones, IMO. Too bad so many have been indoctrinated by public schools, the MSM and “entertainment” to become fools and knaves.
There is a lot of fire simmering. And then there’s China, too.
Don’t forget, dummy.
So, are you saying that you don’t have any objection to the guestworker plan? The guestworker visa known as H2C in 2611 aka H5A in McCain-Kennedy?
- Hardcore leftists just don’t have the wherewithall to pull off violent revolution. A few can do it, but on the whole they just don’t have the mindset for coordinated combat.
Concur. Unless they're desperate and figure they have no other choice. Or encouraged from outside.
- For each Leftist with a gun and the ability+motivation to apply it, there are 100 right-wingers ready to hunt him down.
My numbers work out to something closer to a 500:1 ratio.
The Left just can’t pull off a revolution in this country.
Probably not nationwide. But in the event of a Soviet Union/1990- style breakup, they could potentially control several former states, possibly contigious ones.
HOWEVER...throw the “Azltan” opportunists in the mix, and things could indeed get very interesting - in the Chinese curse sort of way.
Concur again. Other related historical precedents include the Argentine military coup of 1943 and its aftermath in the 1944 removal of General Ramirez as president, and the election of February 1946 that elevated Colonel Juan Domingo Perón to the Argentine presidency. See also the coups, countercoups and elections of Bolivia, 1965-1995, and the period known in Colombia as La Violenciaor El Bogotazo that followed the assassination of the Liberal presidential candidate Jorge Eliécer Gaitán on April 9, 1948 that began in Bogota and spread through out the country and claimed the lives of at least 180,000 Colombians. From 1953 to 1964 the violence continued until General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla deposed the President of Colombia in a coup d'etat, supported by both blood-weary liberals and conservatives.
“McCommies deal with the NVA during his captivity...”Deal?WTF?Where can i read more about that?Thanx
I really want to say "They're not that desperate" but unfortunately they might be. Whipping themselves into a frenzy, they really could convince themselves "it's time". Thing is...who are "they"? are there really that many that wound up? Most of "them" are ensconced deep within cities, unable to function without a working comprehensive infrastructure ... this quickly leads to my ill-defined "urban vs. rural" theory of CWII, noting that the only viable political division really is islands of "blue" separated by shorelines against a sea of "red".
Encouraged from outside? I don't really see how or who. There's enough wealth and arms here for the taking that there is no need, nay no greater supplier, of either outside our borders.
But in the event of a Soviet Union/1990- style breakup, they could potentially control several former states, possibly contigious ones.
Different scenario, presuming a breakdown of the federal money machine. Despite fiat currencies, inflation, staggering debt, and confiscatory taxation, methinks we still have a long way to go before that system implodes; when inflation hits 3 digits, national debt moves beyond trillions, and taxes reach 90% for the middle class, then we'll talk that scenario.
However, the Azltan scenario has a similar outcome. I DO see a viable chance of California switching sides within the decade. There's a huge geographic buffer between the compacted population on the coast and the eastern CA border. With only a couple dozen serious roads linking to contiguous states, an apathetic majority, and a very large sympathetic & activist minority, it wouldn't take long for the "we're Mexico now" meme to propagate VERY fast and pervasively, overwhelming the "we're American" meme. Putting down the insurrection would be ... interesting.
Azltan aside, the remaining political division is so intensely urban/rural that I don't see groups of states going their own way. The "blue" states are still dominantly "red" geographically when you pin down the dividing lines by voting precinct. If the blues tried to break off, the reds down the road would give 'em the finger and break out the deer rifles.
coup d'etat
Don't see it happening. Only a tiny, albeit astoundingly vocal, minority are actually vested in the Leftist cause. Most incumbent politicians are careerists - not really caring about causes, only saying what's needed to perpetuate their employment, and thus firmly disinterested in anything that would severely hinder vote-swaying and fund-raising, like, say, a coup.
Maybe that's really the core to consider: only a tiny number have an affinity to Leftism to a revolutionary degree, while the vast majority have a vested interest in the status quo, and are willing to unleash the police and military force of the most powerful nation on Earth to keep things as they are ... and in our scenario, revolutionaries don't have enough direction, leadership or firepower to overcome that.
Our Founding Fathers had a discernible cause to fight for, with leaders of vision, an achievable goal, and a will to fight for that end. Modern Leftists do not, as there is sufficient bread and circuses to keep the necessary rabble disinterested in revolution.
Really... is George Bush a stupid moron or a moron ON PURPOSE.. and complicit in the political rape of our justice system???..
What is instructive about that historical example is how easily a society can unravel. Our society has been unraveling for a long time. Will America have a Second Civil War (a misnomer, seeing as there wasn't anything civil about the War For Southern Independence of 1861-65)? We ARE having a non-kinetic struggle over the future of the Republic right now. This struggle has been going on for as long as I have been politically aware.
Red State America, rural America, Constitution-loving, Second Amendment-practicing, God-fearing patriots who generally believe in their country, right or wrong, are on the one side of the divide.
Blue State America, urban America, Europe-loving, carbon offset-buying, First Amendment-practicing, agnostic Transnational Progressives who generally believe their country is the focus of evil in the world today, are on the other side of the divide.
Somebody famous whose name I can't remember said between two opposing camps who seek to make totally different worlds I see no alternative but force. I believed that myself for many years. Violence IS the answer to some questions, and there may yet be violence in America, but probably not on a scale recognizable as Civil War. Decades of conditioning by Cultural Marxists have so well prepared the Infomation Operations battlefield that kinetic action will be limited to Waco- and Elian Gonzales-type storm trooper operations from one side with little effective response from the other side. The "patriots" can talk smack and stay home and clean their guns, but without a huge upheaval that counters some 40 years of propaganda and psychological operations conducted against the American target audience they will be marginalized and ineffective, demonized and ratted out and rolled up.
A successful mass casualty terrorist attack could provide that huge attitude adjustment. Pretty expensive way to gain clarity.
And for everybody on this thread who stayed home on Election Day to protest Bush's border policy, are you happy now?
I did not support the S.2611 amnesty legislation, including the provisions related to “H2C” visas. I did not support the McCain-Kennedy amnesty legislation, including the provisions related to “H5A” visas.
Why are you afraid to say whether you support giving legal status to illegal aliens?
Why are you afraid to whether you support giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship?
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House?
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?
Why are you afraid to say what member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration?
Why are you afraid to name a immigration bill that you support in the 110th Congress?
Is there a single immigration bill that you supported in the 109th Congress?
The answer is not what I, or some member of Comgress, wants, it is what I, or some member of Congress, am willing to accept. I will accept what is politically feasible.
I support more enforcement.
Even tho I think much of the enforcement included should be handled in seperate legislation, I will accept it being included.
Even tho I am opposed to 700 miles of fence, I would accept it.
I accept the fact that I am going to lose. That the GOP is going to lose. Some GOP members of Congress accepted that fact 3 years ago. Some accepted that one year ago. Some will accept it in this session.
The longer it drags out, the more I/the GOP will lose.
In retrospect, the GOP should have made a deal in 1999. Or 2004. Or 2006. And if the GOP is unwilling to make a deal in 2007, they will have to accept a worse deal in 2009.
You’ve answered none of the questions.
Do you support giving legal status to illegal aliens? You are afraid to answer that question. If you don’t support giving legal status to illegal aliens, then say it.
Do you support giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship? You are afraid to answer that question. If you don’t support giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship, then say it.
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House?
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?
What member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration? If you anwered this question, please refer me to the post number in which you answered it.
Why are you afraid to name a immigration bill that you support in the 110th Congress? You’ve yet to name a single immigration bill in the 110th that you support, though you demanded that I name a specific immigration bill that I support. I named eleven (11) for you. None of the ones I support, however, contain amnesty provisions.
Is there a single immigration bill that you supported in the 109th Congress? Why are you afraid to say what immigration bill in the 109th Congress you supported.
I did answer you question. You are just too stupid to understand the answer.
You’ve certainly demonstrated superior intellect by resorting to personal insults.
Do you support giving legal status to illegal aliens? If you’ve anwered this question, please list the number of the post in which you’ve answered it.
Do you support giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship? If you’ve answered this question, please list the number of the post in which you answered it.
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House?
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?
What member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration? If you anwered this question, please refer me to the post number in which you answered it.
What immigration bill do you support in the 110th Congress?
Is there a single immigration bill that you supported in the 109th Congress? If you’ve answered this question, please list the number of the post in which you answered it.
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.