US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1104

On June 11 2014 13:51 hunts wrote:


How dare he defend capitalism! Such an evil, terrible, awful man! Defending capitalism, the nerve! Doesn't he understand how much better off we would be if obama just told everyone what profession to do, and how much they will get paid?

Really, how are people actually using "capitalist" "capitalism" or "defender of capitalism" as an insult or a bad thing? Does that mean that everyone who is against capitalism or for socialism should be called a communist?

On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not even a little bit. I'm guessing you can't come up with any legislation that does what you are saying and/or that meets those basic requirements I outlined?

My guess is it's because it doesn't exist?

After my research I've concluded that:

There is bipartisan support for an immigration bill, that bill is being blocked in the house.

The viable plans for securing the border are all basically the same. (Conservatives feel free to point out significant differences)

The primary obstacle is what is done with the ~11,000,000 people who have already illegally entered the US (not securing the border).

The people who oppose the bipartisan proposal have not crafted an alternative that is acceptable to themselves...? Further more there is none on the foreseeable horizon.

It seems that the opposition and the support differ on the definition of 'amnesty'

If any of that is inaccurate feel free to enlighten me?

On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not even a little bit. I'm guessing you can't come up with any legislation that does what you are saying and/or that meets those basic requirements I outlined?

My guess is it's because it doesn't exist?

After my research I've concluded that:

There is bipartisan support for an immigration bill, that bill is being blocked in the house.

The viable plans for securing the border are all basically the same. (Conservatives feel free to point out significant differences)

The primary obstacle is what is done with the ~11,000,000 people who have already illegally entered the US (not securing the border).

The people who oppose the bipartisan proposal have not crafted an alternative that is acceptable to themselves...? Further more there is none on the foreseeable horizon.

It seems that the opposition and the support differ on the definition of 'amnesty'

If any of that is inaccurate feel free to enlighten me?

On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:


xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first.

Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like.

On June 11 2014 15:02 GreenHorizons wrote:



The problem conservatives seem to have is they have no problem pointing out problems in legislation but they can't for the life of them write alternatives that are acceptable to themselves... Immigration being a prime example.

For decades they have been asking for something to be done, yet when you ask "Where is your plan?", it either doesn't exist, isn't significantly different than what already has bipartisan support, and/or can't get past the 'amnesty' hurdle.

It seems pretty ridiculous that conservatives have said for decades that they want to resolve the problem yet they still don't have an alternative piece of legislation they would support!?

I can't look at decades of complaining without having a viable legislative alternative as anything other than rhetorical bullshit. Even if you don't like Democratic alternatives at least they present them?

On June 11 2014 15:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I'm not sure where you are going with this. You were originally discussing the issue with people on this thread and arguing with what they said. Now you're arguing with "conservatives" who aren't here.

You had asked for anyone here to define a secure border. I gave you information on that. Now you're demanding that I come up with legislation that meets your requirements?

On June 11 2014 15:14 Introvert wrote:


I'll say it again then: there is no legislation because Washington doesn't want to secure the border. It's another perpetual issue then can exploit from now until kingdom come. Why bother writing up long drafts that have no chance? It's not like the Obamacare bill just magically appeared in the senate for them to vote on, they had to decide what they were going to spend their political capital on (and once they did, THEN Obamacare went through Congress at light speed). I didn't know I was required to write actual legal text before begin able to make a case for something. xDaunt gave you a basic outline of what he, in particular, would do. That's where we start once the national conversation reaches that point. But I agree: no idea is legitimate or worth fighting over (in a primary, say) unless a bill already exists. That sounds totally reasonable.

I suppose you voted for Obama in 2008, but did HE have precise legislation for ANYTHING he wanted to do before he was elected? No. They never do. Yet we elect these people to help come up with it. Stop inventing new problems.

On June 11 2014 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


What is stopping the Tea Party from writing the legislation?

What Xdaunt said is basically the Bipartisan proposal.

The Tea Party house members have been in office for a while now, they have had plenty of time to write something...?

We've needed a solution for decades, one is finally on the table. Instead of negotiating, or proposing an alternative the Tea Party is just pouting in the corner refusing to move forward 'because amnesty', yet they can't for the life of them come up with an 'amnesty free' proposal, it's completely asinine.

On June 11 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:


What are you talking about?

As I said there isn't a significant difference in what people want to do to 'secure the border', which is why I asked for what conservatives thought that meant.

I'm not 'demanding' anything, merely highlighting that you can't...

Since what people want to do to secure the border is essentially the same, that isn't the main issue holding up immigration reform.

What is holding up reform is what is done with the people already illegally here. The main problem isn't whether people believe whether the law will be enforced as written (among the Tea Party anyway) It's specifically what we do with the people illegally here.

Specifically in the race we were talking about, the Tea Party challenger called the treatment of those people under the bipartisan proposal 'amnesty'. I was making sure that the opposition (here or anywhere) didn't have or know of a proposal that would legislate 'non-amnesty'.

So far you (and any other conservative here) have shown me that they don't. I think it is pathetic (and emblematic) that the Tea Party/Conservatives will vote someone out for 'supporting amnesty' but they don't have a single proposal that avoids the 'amnesty' they so dread. Yet they say they have wanted to do something for decades...

if they thought it would be useful or worth their time.

So the core difference is that before ANY amnesty is to be made

On June 11 2014 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


/sigh Really? Because voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act the last 30-40 times met those expectations?

So the core difference is that before ANY amnesty is to be made

Could any conservative tell me what is an approximately acceptable level of 'amnesty' for conservatives against the current bipartisan proposal? Also what is supposed to be an acceptable level of 'amnesty' for Tea Party supporters if it's different than generic conservatives against the current proposal?

The HR-15 guide I linked to said that there was disputes over securing the border.

That I can't what? Find a piece of legislation on comprehensive immigration reform that everyone agrees on? Obviously! If it existed it would have been passed already.

Why you asked so many questions about something you now consider a red herring is questionable.

You'd have to look up what that specific guy is for and if any legislation matches that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. Are you arguing that this guy who just got elected is the proxy for what conservatives want?

Republicans have put forth legislation. As you said, there have been a lot of bipartisan proposals.

You do realize voting to repeal is different than writing and introducing brand new legislation?

It's not a question of acceptable amnesty, it's a question of acceptable security.

Once the border security issue is addressed, then we discuss what to do about those who are already here. Doesn't seem that hard to understand.

On June 11 2014 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


They seem focused on how they impact people already here which is what I said? Unless you can point to something I missed?



You seem to misunderstand what I was asking somehow? I was just looking for one 'The Right' agreed on? Still can't find it?



I was asking if there was some argument I was missing. It doesn't appear that there were any significant ones? The generic concern about 'securing the border' is focused on:
1. How to measure it's success
2. How it impacts people already here
3. Enforcement of the Law

None of those significantly change what we do on the border itself. So how we secure it tactically, is essentially the same.

Number 3 is mostly a personal thing against Obama and politicians in general so it's only relevant in it's relation to 1 and 2.

Number 1 isn't really a point of contention except in where it concerns number 2.

Number 2 is now the central issue regarding 'securing the border' as it is the foundation from which all of the other contentions are formed.


My point is that there is no legislation for him to be 'for' (I'm sure you're getting that by now). No I am not arguing he is a proxy. I am suggesting there is no proxy (at least in legislative form) and that reasonable conservatives should be able to point to something that clearly delineates what they would do differently (not just what they don't like). The Tea Party (or conservatives against the current proposal) seem to be incapable of doing that.



Now that Republicans have finally tried, and passed something in the Senate, all the Tea Party has to say about it is... "NO!". When asked 'Why?'... 'because amnesty'

So now I need to know what is or isn't amnesty? Or what level would be acceptable to people against the current proposal? So I asked repeatedly for anything that resembled an official position or legislation, no one seems to have any...?

Now I'll settle for whatever Tea Partiers/conservatives/opponents of the current proposal/whatever you are/ would deem an acceptable amount of 'amnesty'?

How is it different in relation to what we are talking about? You suggested they didn't write the legislation because it wasn't worth the time and effort. They spent more time and more effort on something easily as pointless if not more so. It suggests your 'point' was silly. Something being 'useful or worth their time' is clearly not a requirement for what they do in the House so it doesn't explain their inaction at all.

That just blows my mind... So what are you suggesting to do about them while the 'security issue is addressed'?

Except that's not the case. There isn't really much disagreement on security itself.

On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:


xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first.

Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like.

On June 11 2014 12:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Ethics program! Wow, what a monster

On June 11 2014 13:51 hunts wrote:


How dare he defend capitalism! Such an evil, terrible, awful man! Defending capitalism, the nerve! Doesn't he understand how much better off we would be if obama just told everyone what profession to do, and how much they will get paid?

Really, how are people actually using "capitalist" "capitalism" or "defender of capitalism" as an insult or a bad thing? Does that mean that everyone who is against capitalism or for socialism should be called a communist?

On June 11 2014 17:37 Danglars wrote:

A) & B) are the principal fears, founded on past policy and the current state of lawmaking and law-enforcing.

Now the definition of amnesty really opens up a broad topic on immigration legislation. I saw several compromises discussed and a few actively debated going further than a guest worker program and stopping short of the immediate granting of citizenship. These fall under the broad heading of a "pathway to citizenship," at least I think that's the current favored term for supporters of the comprehensive approach.

The second Congress passes a law saying everybody illegally here gets legal status after a waiting period of some length, or contingent upon learning some basic level of English, or on receipt of fees or backtaxes, then they're creating a new status that may be interpreted by the Supreme Court as the creation of a second-class citizen for this new limbo. The judicial branch has already taken an interest in writing its own immigration laws by rewriting existing laws (Graham v. Richardson, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, Sugarman v. Dougall, Plyler v. Doe, Nyquist v. Mauclet). It claims authority under the 5th & 14th amendments. So if the somewhat-popular concept of "It ISN'T AMNESTY, they still have to pay a penalty & wait" gets passed, it is only a matter of time until the Supreme Court rewrites it into full citizenship rights. The recent past of judicial history leaves no doubt that any such provisions would be held to violate the due process and equal protection clauses and removed.

On June 11 2014 18:07 mcc wrote:

It is meant as an insult, because people like him are trying to make capitalism into ideology with its own perverted ethical backing. Capitalism is a tool, ethics has to do with capitalism as it does with a hammer. People consider, rightly, unregulated capitalism as an evil thing, thus call people trying to make capitalism into a religion evil. The last inference is unwarranted exaggeratrion, but understandable.