In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 12 2014 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world and it's political priorities:
Because we still don't know the difference between its and it's?
IMO it was totally worth having the debate to question the exemptions given to religious groups and whether the government is encroaching on the freedom of belief when it forces people to abide by policies that may offend or violate their beliefs. This is currently a fundamental point of difference between the two parties, where Republicans are skeptical of a growing government and favor individual cooperation through social organizations and communities, while Democrats see such groups (especially Christianity) as a root cause of the outrages in the status quo and thus worth being pushed down and away from public life by a government seeking to end those outrages. In regards to Christianity, both sides insist the Bill of Rights protects something different - Republicans say the Bill of Rights should protect Christianity from having expressions of its faith taken away while Democrats say the Bill of Rights should protect other minority religions and groups from expressions of Christian beliefs.
Your video nitpicks a fairly stupid line of questioning while ignoring the essence and themes of the debate.
Criticizing others for voicing "opinions and not facts" while writing completely ideological (and false) paragraph is kind of ironical. The same goes for criticizing nitpicking while questioning a typo.
Uh, yeah, it is ironical. Almost like I tried to do it...
Well your post is completely indistinguishable from a serious one, so ...
Clearly, coverpunch has merely been playing the role of a Fox News intellectual all along. He's simply trying to show us all just how inconsistent their views are. He's done an admirable job thus far, if the crowd's incredulity is any indication.
Anyone asserting the "secure the border before reform" position should read this article:
"Opponents of a new legalization program for unauthorized immigrants living and working in the United States frequently claim that we must try “enforcement first.” That is to say, we must adequately enforce the laws on the books before we can contemplate the formulation of more reasonable laws. This stance is nonsensical for two reasons. First of all, it ignores the fact that the unworkable nature of our immigration laws is itself facilitating unauthorized immigration; so it is illogical to hope that stronger enforcement of those unworkable laws will somehow lessen unauthorized immigration. Secondly, the “enforcement first” perspective conveniently overlooks the fact that the United States has been pursuing an “enforcement first” approach to immigration control for more than two-and-a-half decades—and it has yet to work."
Attempts to "secure" the border will fail as long as there is no legal mechanism to supply the demand for migrant workers in this country.
Also, it should be noted that the bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support includes several "triggers" related securing the boarder before any permanent path to citizenship becomes available, as well as huge increases in boarder security expenditures:
"The bill makes enormous investments in border security, including the following: deploying at least 38,405 full-time Border Patrol agents along the southern border (including an additional 19,200 more than currently in place); mandating an electronic exit system at all ports where Customs and Border Protection agents are deployed; constructing at least 700 miles of fencing, including double fencing; increasing mobile surveillance; deploying aircraft and radio communications; constructing additional Border Patrol stations and operating bases; hiring additional prosecutors, judges, and staff; providing additional training to border officers; and increasing prosecutions of illegal border crossings. The bill specifies mandatory area-specific technology and infrastructure that includes watch towers, camera systems, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, radiation isotope identification devices, mobile automated targeting systems, unmanned aircraft, radar systems, helicopters, and marine vessels, among other minimum requirements. The bill mandates 24-hour surveillance of the border region using mobile, video, and portable systems, as well as unmanned aircraft, and deploys 1,000 distress beacon stations in areas where migrant deaths occur. Interior enforcement against visa overstays is also increased. The Department of Homeland Security is required to initiate removal (deportation) proceedings, confirm that relief from removal is pending or granted, or otherwise close 90 percent of the cases of immigrants who have overstayed their visas by more than 180 days in the last 12 months. A pilot program is created to notify immigrants that their visas are about to expire."
House Republicans have refused to allow a vote on this bill, and have not proposed any amendments to it. Opposition to comprehensive immigration reform has nothing to do with a desire to have a secure boarder. It is all about obstruction for the sake of obstruction, because that is what people who vote in GOP primaries insist on these days.
Dave Brat beat Cantor because he campaigned on a message against crony capitalism, lobbyists having too much influence in Washington, and that investment bankers responsible for the crash of 2008 should have gone to jail.
It wasn't immigration. Lindsay Graham voted for the immigration reform bill and he got 59 percent of the vote in his primary.
People of all political leanings are sick of big business being in bed with big government.
Dave Brat: Eric Cantor doesn’t represent you, he represents large corporations seeking a never-ending supply of cheap foreign labor. He doesn’t care about how this will affect your livelihood, your schools, your tax bills or your kids’ chances of finding a job
On June 12 2014 08:55 SnipedSoul wrote: Dave Brat beat Cantor because he campaigned on a message against crony capitalism, lobbyists having too much influence in Washington, and that investment bankers responsible for the crash of 2008 should have gone to jail.
It wasn't immigration. Lindsay Graham voted for the immigration reform bill and he got 59 percent of the vote in his primary.
People of all political leanings are sick of big business being in bed with big government.
Dave Brat: Eric Cantor doesn’t represent you, he represents large corporations seeking a never-ending supply of cheap foreign labor. He doesn’t care about how this will affect your livelihood, your schools, your tax bills or your kids’ chances of finding a job
When the choice is between a crony capitalist and someone who would rather see the country burn to satisfy his tantrum ill take the first one as a lesser of two evils thanks.
On June 12 2014 08:25 farvacola wrote: Farvacola likes writing all *sorts* of things!!
Hey farva do you think you could change the front page image of boehner and obama?? Just to freshen things up a bit. Its a really nice picture and all but it would be nice to see something else . Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions...hopefully someone gives you one
On June 12 2014 08:25 farvacola wrote: Farvacola likes writing all *sorts* of things!!
Hey farva do you think you could change the front page image of boehner and obama?? Just to freshen things up a bit. Its a really nice picture and all but it would be nice to see something else . Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions...hopefully someone gives you one
For some reason I've lost the ability to edit the OP but I'll replace the image as soon as I am able.
Well in fairness I am quite interested to see how legitimate libertarians might influence the legislature, just from what I can see so many of them are just Conservative ideologies masquerading as anti-big government candidates.
Heh Virginia politics always entertaining. Can't say that I saw this coming though. Wasn't Bob McDonald just recently in the news for adultery or some scandal?
I think conservatives would support a "comprehensive" bill if they thought that it actually secure the border first. The problem is, none of the proposed bills do, nor do we trust Obama to care about following them. So they can be a part of the same bill (in principle), but the securing of the border must occur first.
You do realize how contradictory that garble is right?
What would the proposal need to say to do that to your satisfaction?
Sounds like nothing can pass while Obama is president because conservatives think he is a lawless brigand, and sounds like some conservatives here think the supreme court will just grant citizenship no matter what the law says.
So sounds like conservatives wont do anything until they run at least 2 branches, probably all three, so basically they don't plan on ever doing anything.
Newsflash for conservatives: keeping people from voting, trying to break up families by deporting hard working people, pushing for policies like stop and frisk, talking about women's vagina's and rape, opposition to gay marriage, etc... is only making your constituency older, whiter, more homophobic, and too small to ever win a presidential election.
What I think conservatives tend to not understand is that their privilege is being checked. For a long time all they had to do was whatever they convinced ignorant white people they wanted. Now you can't win a national election by only getting ignorant white votes. Conservatives have to appeal to non-whites if they want to have a chance (pushing to restrict non-conservative voters or trying to secure more of the white vote can only take you so far).
Conservatives need to come up with policies non-whites actually appreciate not just try to convince them how conservative policies are actually good for them (they aren't falling for conservative BS). Also refusing to acknowledge the racist practices of stop and frisk just further undermines the idea of 'reaching out'. Conservative opposition to immigration reform is the same thing. Nothing conservatives have suggested is going to get them any closer to a winning coalition.
What party veterans are trying to tell the Conservatives blocking immigration reform is all about that number next to Hispanic and non-Hispanic black. Blocking immigration reform means you lose most of those non-white independents.
Republicans are not going to get any significant number more white voters, and people are outraged at their attempts at voter suppression so it's looking really bad for them (Presidentially).
Conservatives are basically just giving democrats a 10 point bump by blocking reasonable immigration reform.
Oh well, on the bright side at least we'll have Ted Cruz to laugh at this presidential cycle.
The numbers are barely changing, and Romney won independents.
Your evidence that what I am saying is wrong is your own personal opinion, which has been demonstrated time and time again to be wildly off-base with respect to the right. I am glad that you went from yesterday asking questions and seemingly being ignorant of conservative rationale on immigration to here giving us an essay on what you think.
I personally don't trust Obama to enforce the laws (including the stupid "triggers" from the bill last year). It's a separate topic, but imo this president has shown his willingness to use more "executive authority" than almost anyone. So no, I don't trust him.
As to only needing whites... so? I'm so glad we have you (and the whole media) as Republican campaign managers. I don't give two figs for the party. There is no point in winning as Democrat-lite. If we lose, we lose. There are certainly compromises to me made, as in any republic, but I refuse to fall for the same BS twice. Amnesty first means security WILL NOT happen. The Democrats won't even acknowledge a problem on the border. With Washington the way it is, I need to see the legislation as clear and unambiguous as possible.
I simply don't see that what has been put before Congress has sufficient assurances of security.
On June 12 2014 09:26 Wombat_NI wrote: Well in fairness I am quite interested to see how legitimate libertarians might influence the legislature, just from what I can see so many of them are just Conservative ideologies masquerading as anti-big government candidates.
People who actually buy into that particularly political philosophy wholesale rather than those who pay lip service to it, but who subsequently use whatever public support they have to pursue particular ideological agendas via governmental mechanisms.
Say what you want about the guy, I don't agree with a lot of his platform but I view a Ron Paul differently from social conservatives masquerading as something that they are not. I have a lot of time for people who hold an actual libertarian position on a wide range of issues as part of a divergent political landscape, I can't stand those who jump on the small government bandwagon when what they really mean is 'cut the programmes I don't personally agree with' , if that makes sense. The 'Tea Party' movement has plenty of figures in both camps .
On June 12 2014 10:20 Wombat_NI wrote: People who actually buy into that particularly political philosophy wholesale rather than those who pay lip service to it, but who subsequently use whatever public support they have to pursue particular ideological agendas via governmental mechanisms.
Say what you want about the guy, I don't agree with a lot of his platform but I view a Ron Paul differently from social conservatives masquerading as something that they are not. I have a lot of time for people who hold an actual libertarian position on a wide range of issues as part of a divergent political landscape, I can't stand those who jump on the small government bandwagon when what they really mean is 'cut the programmes I don't personally agree with' , if that makes sense. The 'Tea Party' movement has plenty of figures in both camps .
The problem is that most people don't understand that the "crony" in crony capitalism is a feature not a bug. Monopoly, state subsidies, pro-business policies, lobbying, and even corruption are simply adaptations of capital seeking to reproduce itself. They are the result of capital going over or around natural and artificial barriers to reproduction.
EPT
. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions...hopefully someone gives you one![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5YF9xyk.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eNRfsUL.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nxoIOXZ.gif)
