Amnesty...

[SteamWake]

This will be the next agenda so might as well bring it up now. Obama will and soon to replace all the voters the dems have lost.

[Oberon]

Care to elaborate?

[Raptor1]

Is 'amnisty' even a real word?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Care to elaborate?

Convicted felons aren't allowed to vote in U.S. elections. After all, someone caught w/a joint in their ashtray shouldn't be allowed to participate in democracy.

[frau kaleun]

I'm guessing he means "amnesty."

[SteamWake]

Convicted felons aren't allowed to vote in U.S. elections. After all, someone caught w/a joint in their ashtray shouldn't be allowed to participate in democracy.

Thanks for correcting my spelling Frau...I attempted to correct the title but only a mod can do that ;)

To further elaborate on the 10's of thousands of immagrants in the country illegally also cannot participate in democracy amongst other things. Amnisty would make them 'instant citizens' and voters indebted and greatfull for their new found citizenship.

[Oberon]

Oh, well, yes, that makes sense. Can't see it being popular if this is changed. Where has it been indicated that Obama wants to do this?

[SteamWake]

Oh, well, yes, that makes sense. Can't see it being popular if this is changed. Where has it been indicated that Obama wants to do this?

Nowhere yet but.... Care to make a bet? ;)

[Oberon]

Nowhere yet but.... Care to make a bet? ;)

:har: Touché, touché, but until then, I'll refrain from shouting 'Fire' in the crowded theatre :03:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Thanks for correcting my spelling Frau...

To further elaborate on the 10's of thousands of immagrants in the country illegally also cannot participate in democracy amongst other things. Amnisty would make them 'instant citizens' and voters indebted and greatfull for their new found citizenship.

Really?? I thought you were talking about felons. Why would illegals get instant citizenship? And the right to vote?

Well, we're already going to be a Latin American country in 100 years, I guess this would accelerate it. If true.

[Skybird]

Pah, that is nothing.

In Britain they run a campaign, "give your vote", where British citizens with the right to vote are called to pass on their right and give their voting right to foreigners in foreign countries, preferrably Afghanistan, Ghana and what was the third one? Iraq? That way foreign people should get a chance and feel invited to vote for the British parliament on the other side of the planet. It makes them participating in the democractic process in good ol' damn insane totally crazy Britain.

It makes the Gutmenschen feel well to have demonstrated their own good willingness, kindness and good-heartedness that way. Now isn't that lovely. I'm moved and touched at the bottom of my heart. Stop it or I must cry.

[Skybird]

Well, we're already going to be a Latin American country in 100 years,
Earlier.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Earlier.

Well, yeah...I guess I meant FIRMLY established as Latin American!!!

At least we won't be Islamic!! :har:

[Skybird]

Well, yeah...I guess I meant FIRMLY established as Latin American!!!

At least we won't be Islamic!! :har:
You will - just later.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

You will - just later.

On the bright side, I'll be dead!!! :yeah:

[Tribesman]

In Britain they run a campaign, "give your vote", where British citizens with the right to vote are called to pass on their right and give their voting right to foreigners in foreign countries, preferrably Afghanistan, Ghana and what was the third one? Iraq? That way foreign people should get a chance and feel invited to vote for the British parliament on the other side of the planet. It makes them participating in the democractic process in good ol' damn insane totally crazy Britain.

This should be good, where on earth has Skybird found this mysterious change to the electoral laws?
Is it in a secret treaty written up by the muslims EU and Illuminati by any chance?

To further elaborate on the 10's of thousands of immagrants in the country illegally also cannot participate in democracy amongst other things. Amnisty would make them 'instant citizens' and voters indebted and greatfull for their new found citizenship.
What utter bollox.
Have the previous "amnesties" given instant citizenship?
If people given "amnesty" under those moves eventualy got citizenship were they eternally gratefull to the republican party in all subsequent elections?

[SteamWake]

Which amnesty are you talking about?

The one that was proposed by the Bush administration and was soundly rebuked?

[Tribesman]

Which amnesty are you talking about?

The one that was proposed by the Bush administration and was soundly rebuked?
The one Reagan approved and signed into law would be a start

[SteamWake]

The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The Act also granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982


Oh yes that one... not quite the sweeping reform you elude to. Read the language there. You wont see any of these sort of restrictions in whats comming nor will you see any 'path towards legalization'.

[Bubblehead1980]

Thing is we could easily stop illegal immigration and save America.National Guard on border, shoot people who are caught crossing illegally.Fine people HEAVILY or take their business license if they employ legals.Round up illegals, no questions asked and deport them.Sounds harsh and the touchy feely libs out there would prob slit their wrists, but would solve the problem fast.We have to do something before the hispanic vote is more powerful and it will be too late, would hate to see us end up like Mexico etc We're not getting the cream of the crop either from these places , just dumb ignorant people who breed like rabbits and cause us nothing but problems.

One of the few things I dislike about Reagan is his amnesty but even the gipper was not perfect.

[Tribesman]

Oh yes that one... not quite the sweeping reform you elude to.
I refer to a bill, elements of which are described as an amnesty.
Whereas you allude to a wingnuit conspiracy version of bill that doesn't even exist.
So "sweeping reform" is only applicable to your own nonsensical claim.

You wont see any of these sort of restrictions in whats comming
Ah the imaginary legislation again, yes it is hard to see restrictions in non existant legislation.
nor will you see any 'path towards legalization'
Is there some legal restriction on those drugs, they must be damn wierd to give hallucinations that strong.

[XabbaRus]

The thing Skybird is referring to isn't an official project backed by the government, it is a project by the Egality organisation.

http://giveyourvote.org/

http://egalitynow.org/
I personally think its nuts but I think Skybird hasn't presented it well, he made it out to look like something official.

[edit]
Doing some more digging and nothing but comes up for Marxist Egality organisation but a link to the BNP website comes close to top of google list with a link to what I posted above.

However I found this on wikipedia too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giveyourvote

[Aramike]

The thing Skybird is referring to isn't an official project backed by the government, it is a project by the Marxist Egality organisation.

http://giveyourvote.org/

Link. Just a crazy idea by do goody idealists...Ah, yes, blind humanism with a backdoor advocacy for the death of culture.

[Oberon]

UK votes are barely worth the paper they're written on anyway, it's been a two horse race for years and both horses are lame. :damn:

[Skybird]

I personally think its nuts but I think Skybird hasn't presented it well, he made it out to look like something official.

While I did not go into the detail (or lack of...), I did not indicate it is something run by government authorities. It is a public run campaign and they claim to already have gotten several thousand such "votes".

I could not believe it when I read about it first.

[CaptainHaplo]

Whats amazingly stupid about such a "project" is that there is no safeguard. Ok - so you want to "give your vote" to someone in Ghana. All it takes is one of the "Egalitarians" to decide that all the votes were to go for a specific party - and suddenly you have a single entity controlling the votes of who knows how many.

Ultimately - you abrogate your right to vote, you deserve the trash you end up with.:damn:

I just wonder how the US ended up with the trash we have in the white house and majority of congress. *Actually I know - but still....

[Buddahaid]

Really?? I thought you were talking about felons. Why would illegals get instant citizenship? And the right to vote?

Well, we're already going to be a Latin American country in 100 years, I guess this would accelerate it. If true.

Well out west was Mexico you know. Did you think everyone just headed back over the new border?

[JetSnake]

The one Reagan approved and signed into law would be a start


That was a poison pill the dems put into the bill. I don't know why that wasn't vetoed, but it was probably one of those bills that would have had worse consequences to have vetoed it than passing it. Reagan was still the best president of the past 150 years, including that chud occupying the white house now.

[Freiwillige]

Well out west was Mexico you know. Did you think everyone just headed back over the new border?

The simple answer is Yes. After the U.S beat Mexico in the Mexican American war we firmly booted all Mexican Nationals right across the newly established border. The when we later bought more land off of Mexico we did the same.

Back then it was common to fill America with Anglo-Saxon stock. I mean if we put the native Americans on reservations what makes you believe that Mexican nationals would be roaming freely?

[Tribesman]

That was a poison pill the dems put into the bill. I don't know why that wasn't vetoed
It wasn't vetoed because Republican politicians don't really care about the issue any more than democrat ones do.
The supporterrs of the parties may make all the noise they like but the politicians know the reality.

The simple answer is Yes. After the U.S beat Mexico in the Mexican American war we firmly booted all Mexican Nationals right across the newly established border.
Bloody hell.
So was this Mexican-American war where the treaty ending it gave the option of citizenship to the mexicans on the new territory as well as recogning land ownership of mexicans or is it some fictional war you invented?
The when we later bought more land off of Mexico we did the same.

At least that is correct, under various treaties and protocols the mexicans got pretty much the same treatment under the purchases as they got after the war.....though of course Freiwillige doesn't know about those real events and got it backwards.

Whats amazingly stupid about such a "project" is that there is no safeguard. Ok - so you want to "give your vote" to someone in Ghana. All it takes is one of the "Egalitarians" to decide that all the votes were to go for a specific party - and suddenly you have a single entity controlling the votes of who knows how many.

Whats amazing about that statement is that with the process they have over in Britain, if someone from the "egalitarian" idiots were to decide all the votes were to go to one party and could manage to pull it off they would have a handfull of votes spread throughout hundreds of constituancies which would count for nothing even if they could find a "marxist" party in any of those constituancies to vote for.

[XabbaRus]

Yes Skybird but you didn't not indicate it was anything official.

When I first read it I thought you were mentioning some government initiative. TBH I think it is inconsequential as few will know about it and even fewer will care.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Reagan was still the best president of the past 150 years, including that chud occupying the white house now.

Um, no. Clearly superior off the top of my head:

Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, and (yes indeed) Obama.

I won't argue w/you on this, sort of like I won't be arguing about the sun rising tomorrow or the earth being spherical.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Thing is we could easily stop illegal immigration and save America.National Guard on border, shoot people who are caught crossing illegally.Fine people HEAVILY or take their business license if they employ legals.Round up illegals, no questions asked and deport them.Sounds harsh and the touchy feely libs out there would prob slit their wrists, but would solve the problem fast.We have to do something before the hispanic vote is more powerful and it will be too late, would hate to see us end up like Mexico etc We're not getting the cream of the crop either from these places , just dumb ignorant people who breed like rabbits and cause us nothing but problems.

One of the few things I dislike about Reagan is his amnesty but even the gipper was not perfect.

Hmmm?? I'm mostly lib, and I have no problem setting up minefields, sniper teams, etc., to close off the southern border. It's our border, we can do w/it as we wish, and if Mexico whines about it, too bad.

[SteamWake]

Um, no. Clearly superior off the top of my head:

Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, and (yes indeed) Obama.

I won't argue w/you on this, sort of like I won't be arguing about the sun rising tomorrow or the earth being spherical.

LOL isent that the same list O read as his beaming face proclaimed a victory?

Tell me whom is the defeated?

[Bubblehead1980]

Um, no. Clearly superior off the top of my head:

Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, and (yes indeed) Obama.

I won't argue w/you on this, sort of like I won't be arguing about the sun rising tomorrow or the earth being spherical.


Lincoln I will say was good but not as great as he is made out to be, Booth took him out so Abe gets points to his legacy from everyone.

I used to think TR was awseome but I grew up and realized he was pretty dangerous.A few good things , but not a great President.FDR did a great job as a wartime President but New Deal was really a failure(which is a whole other dicussion)

LBJ? Seriously, terrible.The Great Society and all that crap.Civil Rights Act, sure a good thing to make Jim Crow laws illegal and all.Of course as the Feds tend to do they went too far and put in things like Affirmative Action in , which is just reverse racism, no longer needed and violates other's civil rights, those contradicting the whole point of the bill.Ah the crazy things bleeding heart Liberalism will make you do.Terrible bill and a stain on America.Between his bungling in Vietnam, BS of the Great Society and the BS in the Civil Rights Act, Johnson was not a good President.

I actually agree that Nixon was a good President.Clinton, well he was an OK President but he failed in important areas and had no integrity(I do not care he got a blow job, but he got on national tv and lied.The guy could have said, I made a mistake, it's between Hillzilla and I, I did nothing illegal, the end. No No, Billy had to lie and cause the huge episode he did.Clinton also shoulders some of the blame for 9/11 throughout the 90's we were attacked multiple times...WTC 93, Embassy in Africa, USS Cole and all he did was lob a few cruise missles here and there and arrest a few people.Never did any sweeping actions to go after their base as Bush did in Afghanistan, which even most Libs I talk to have admitted the initial decision to go into Afghan was correct. Clinton also played around with Iraq and Sadam Hussein in the 90's, which is why Sadam did not really believe Bush would invade, he had years of jerking America around with NO consequences other than a few cruise missles and plane strikes now and then.The housing bubble began under Clinton although the Clinton years were mostly prosperous times for America.Also handled the situation in Bosnia well, believe he did some welfare reform.For the good things and bad together, Clinton was OKAY.Would take him back over Obama in a heart beat, least Clinton was no such an idealogue than he moved to the center a bit and cared what the American people wanted.

I have to say how dare you rate obama as one of the best.That hooligan has done nothing but divide this country after he was elected under false pretences(ran as a centrist who cared, who was above politics as usual.Many of us were smart enough to see the most Liberal Senator in the US Senate was not going to be a centrist President, but America was drunk.Kind of like if you would normally never sleep with a fat woman but got a little too drunk and made that mistake, then vowed to never do it again, pretty much the same thing:haha:

Again, how dare you rate him as a great President when he lies constantly, has taken the muslims side and shunned Israel.How dare you rate him as great when he defies the American people when all polls show most did not want the healthcare bill to pass, esp after all the corrupt deals.How dare you say a President who had people like Van Jones, Anita Dunne(admirer of Mao) How about the racism he exhibited in the whole white cop black professor incident? How about the arrogant comment he made at the healtcare summit that if the American people do not like us passing this bill "Then that is what elections are for" Obama is dangerous.Is he the antichrist? No, is he Hitler or Stalin? I do not believe so. This jerk has an agenda that is not in line with America and hopefully one day will be looked at in history books as the terrible "one night stand with a fat girl" that he is so far.

Finally, Reagan is the greatest President we have had in a long long time, far exceeds the ones you listed.Reagan defeated the Soviet Union after decades of proxy wars and letting them jerk us around.Helped defeat them in Afghanistan and won the Cold War. The economic policies were great cut in personal income tax, moderate deregulation and tax reform.After a recession, long period of high economic growth occured with little to no inflation.On the negative side you had the Iran-Contra thing, which I believe because Reagan was an honest man, he had no knowledge of but was a stain on his admin.Handled Grenada and Libya very well etc etc etc Finally, the man legitimately loved this country and had great sense of humor and outlook on life,.No bitterness like obama and his ilk.No association with nutjobs like Wright, Jones, Ayers, Dunne etc No wonder he left office with 64% approval rating.

[SteamWake]

I reserect this thread with a hearty... "Told you so".


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Obama_seeks_to_reconnectyoung_people_AfricanAmerin s_Latinos_and_women_for_2010.html?showall

[Tribesman]

I reserect this thread with a hearty... "Told you so".

So this "told you so" is an address urging people who voted last time to vote this time, but since this topic was you "telling us so" that Obama was going to grant an amnesty to get all the illegals to become citizens so he would as if by magic get all their votes this time.
So it isn't a told you so at all is it:rotfl2:

[SteamWake]

Tell me this.. whom are the 'new voters' referred to in that clip? ;)

Brace yourself its comming.

[Tribesman]

Tell me this.. whom are the 'new voters' referred to in that clip?
Errrrrr...thats a hard question .
Lets see, it may take quite a bit of thought.
So by "new voters" you mean the bit in the clip where he talks about the new voters right.
And by "referred" you must mean what he said.
I assume that by "in that clip" you mean in that clip you posted which I assume you didn't watch because if you did you would know the answer.

So . blimey this is really hard....really really hard....how long can I drag it out....a little longer maybe...
Here we go, after much thought, brain storming and deliberation I think I have deduced that when someone talks about the new voters that turned out and voted for the first time in the last election they are referring to the new voters who turned out and voted for the first time in the last election:yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

I think Obama is best served if he attempts to reach all instead of selecting groups based on gender, race, color, creed for votes.....after all, is he not supposed to be the president for all?

[ETR3(SS)]

I think Obama is best served if he attempts to reach all instead of selecting groups based on gender, race, color, creed for votes.....after all, is he not supposed to be the president for all?To build on this a little, if Obama was white and said this:

old people, Whites, and men who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.

instead of mixed race and said this:

young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.


What would peoples response be then? Just sayin'.

[AVGWarhawk]

Lest we forget he was to cross the isle and work together. Bipartisanship! More like bullsh!tsanship to me. He is dividing and not unifying. Not a good road to take. He fuels the fires of these 'radical, crackhead' tea party folks.

[SteamWake]

Errrrrr...thats a hard question .
Lets see, it may take quite a bit of thought.
So by "new voters" you mean the bit in the clip where he talks about the new voters right.
And by "referred" you must mean what he said.
I assume that by "in that clip" you mean in that clip you posted which I assume you didn't watch because if you did you would know the answer.

So . blimey this is really hard....really really hard....how long can I drag it out....a little longer maybe...
Here we go, after much thought, brain storming and deliberation I think I have deduced that when someone talks about the new voters that turned out and voted for the first time in the last election they are referring to the new voters who turned out and voted for the first time in the last election:yeah:

But doesent he already have that vote? Hrm... must need more for some reason.

[Tribesman]

But doesent he already have that vote?
Not if they don't vote again this time.
In case you missed it the last election was it the highest turnout for decades.

Hrm... must need more for some reason.
Are you running short of tin foil?

To build on this a little, if Obama was white and said this:

It wouldn't make sense, since the old white male voter turnout is fairly consistant.

[ETR3(SS)]

It wouldn't make sense, since the old white male voter turnout is fairly consistant. You are correct that the old white male turnout is fairly consistent, but that's not the point here.:03:

[AVGWarhawk]

You are correct that the old white male turnout is fairly consistent, but that's not the point here.:03:

True...not the point. He is dividing, segregating and doing everything against what he campaigned for in 08. I sense a struggling president who feels he is losing support across the board. What is really needed is a cleaning of Congress.

[GoldenRivet]

True...not the point. He is dividing, segregating and doing everything against what he campaigned for in 08. I sense a struggling president who feels he is losing support across the board. What is really needed is a cleaning of Congress.

100% spot on post

[Tribesman]

You are correct that the old white male turnout is fairly consistent, but that's not the point here

It is the point, there is no need to appeal to something there is no need to appeal to.

He is dividing, segregating and doing everything against what he campaigned for in 08.
Is he really?
He campaigned to get people who don't normally bother with politics involved in the last election, he is asking those same people to stay involved in the next election.
That isn't dividing and segregating, that is including.
I sense a struggling president who feels he is losing support across the board.
Thats the job description isn't it.
What is really needed is a cleaning of Congress.
That ain't gonna happen , you will get the same old faces with a sprinkling of new faces that turn into the same old faces they replaced.
You could of course have a revolution, and replace the current bunch of muppets with a whole new fresh bunch of muppets...but you will still be left with a bunch of muppets in power won't you.

[CaptainHaplo]

Its called Arizona - and the fact that a state has decided to do what the federal government REFUSES to do - secure the borders and enforce existing law. Because of it, now liberals are calling for a massive effort on immigration reform - without securing the borders. Obama has asked the Justice department to look into the legality of a state actually doing something without his permission, and a few dems are even calling on the federal government to "not answer the phone" when illegals are caught...

Steamwake had this one nailed - and its hitting the fan as we speak.
Good for Arizona - and good for the US - its forcing the hands of the dems to show even further what they are......

[Tribesman]

Obama has asked the Justice department to look into the legality of a state actually doing something without his permission, and a few dems are even calling on the federal government to "not answer the phone" when illegals are caught...

While Arizona is busy trying to work out how on earth they can possibly make the law they wrote work without it breaking the law:har:

Though I think my favourite bit of the legislation is about making illegals pay their bills, thats gonna cost the State a fortune.

[AVGWarhawk]

Is he really?
He campaigned to get people who don't normally bother with politics involved in the last election, he is asking those same people to stay involved in the next election.
That isn't dividing and segregating, that is including.



That is your perspective.

[ETR3(SS)]

That isn't dividing and segregating, that is including. You can't include someone without excluding someone else in politics.

[Tribesman]

You can't include someone without excluding someone else in politics.
So if he makes an address about problems with nuclear proliferation in the far east and says N Korea must comply with inspections it means Iran can do what it wants as its excluded.
Since he is including those who were usually excluded and as those who were not usually excluded are usually included without being addressed he isn't excluding anyone.
If however he had said he wants regular voters to not vote and only people who voted for the first time last time to vote then he would be excluding people.

That is your perspective.
Can you demonstrate how that perspective is wrong?

[AVGWarhawk]

Can you demonstrate how that perspective is wrong?

I never said it was wrong...I said it was your perspective. :03: Furthermore, Obama will have to reach out again to these people because quite frankly they are no better off now than two years ago. You for some reason believe these folks are ready to run out and vote again because, after all, Obama is paying their mortgage and they now have "free" healthcare that is no good until four years from now. The "free" part seems to have illuded quite a few. Also, if Obama did not feel threatened in his current position then why the commercials. If all was well under his administration why the posture of appealing to the masses that voted for him in 08? You are looking at a embattle president.

[Tribesman]

I never said it was wrong...I said it was your perspective.
Wheras its easy to show how your perspective was wrong.
And it a matter of simplicity to show Steamwakes perspective is away on another planet

Furthermore, Obama will have to reach out again to these people because quite frankly they are no better off now than two years ago.
Hold on, people here have regularly claimed that only white people get screwed by the government, so surely lots of these people must be better off than they were two years ago:rotfl2:

You for some reason believe these folks are ready to run out and vote again
Errrr...if they was regular voters they might be expected to run out and vote again, since they are not regular voters they can't be expected to run out again which is why they specificly need to be addressed.

Also, if Obama did not feel threatened in his current position then why the commercials.
Its an election campaign, what do you expect?

If all was well under his administration why the posture of appealing to the masses that voted for him in 08?
In an election do you expect a politician to not appeal for the votes of people that voted for them last time?

You are looking at a embattle president.
thats the job description:doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Wheras its easy to show how your perspective was wrong.
And it a matter of simplicity to show Steamwakes perspective is away on another planet



I did not set out to show anyone wrong. That is your modus operandi.

Hold on, people here have regularly claimed that only white people get screwed by the government, so surely lots of these people must be better off than they were two years ago

Please point out were this regulary happens. Surely, everyone is being taxed more. Wake up and read the papers.

Errrr...if they was regular voters they might be expected to run out and vote again, since they are not regular voters they can't be expected to run out again which is why they specificly need to be addressed.


What part of the disillusionment of these voters who got on the rolls for Obama in 08 do you not understand? Furthermore, you now think these people will not go out again and vote. Why? Are they just part of the herd that need prodding in your mind?


thats the job description


No it is not. It is called working together. Bipartisanship. The country has seen none of that. Just another promise dashed upon the shores.

[Tribesman]

I did not set out to show anyone wrong. That is your modus operandi.

Wrong, I set out to explore the topic in question.

Please point out were this regulary happens.
Look at any recenttopic where people moan about their taxes and have to inflate their actual liability to make it sound as if they really have something to moan about.

Surely, everyone is being taxed more. Wake up and read the papers.

You mean like the things that appeared here on tax day which said most people are are paying less?
I suppose you could go on one of Taters posts where he says about the growing number of people who are below the income threshold.

What part of the disillusionment of these voters who got on the rolls for Obama in 08 do you not understand?
I understand it fine.

Furthermore, you now think these people will not go out again and vote.
History would suggest that may be so.

Why? Are they just part of the herd that need prodding in your mind?

Voters are part of the herd, they do need a constant prodding, though in this case as its a mid term. I am sure you can work out for yourself what mid terms mean in terms of voter turnout.

No it is not. It is called working together. Bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship?????in an election campaign where it is one party fighting to win against the other:har::har::har::har:

[AVGWarhawk]

Wrong, I set out to explore the topic in question

Check your posts again.....#53. You do not explore anything. You argue for the sake of arguing. Nothing more. Again, your modus operandi. :03:


Look at any recenttopic where people moan about their taxes and have to inflate their actual liability to make it sound as if they really have something to moan about.



Your answer sucks. Everyone moans about taxes....it just is not a white thing.


You mean like the things that appeared here on tax day which said most people are are paying less?



Tax day? Everyday is tax day here. Sure, the extra $3 a week was a cut under Obama but in one year is was gone and doubled for most. Ask my wife. Lest we forget sales tax and property taxes that have risen in the past two years. The tax system is more complex than just what the Federal Government is taxing.


History would suggest that may be so.



No it would not. There was no history of a mass of non-voters making their way to the polls then stopping. This was the first unprecidented turn out...ever!


Voters are part of the herd, they do need a constant prodding, though in this case as its a mid term. I am sure you can work out for yourself what mid terms mean in terms of voter turnout.



No I can't. Please elaborate.

Bipartisanship?????in an election campaign where it is one party fighting to win against the other

No, the topic is the broken promise of many by Obama. In short, we will just call it a lie. This is only part of the disillusionment concern Obama and his failing policies/legislations.

[Tribesman]

Check your posts again.....#53. You do not explore anything. You argue for the sake of arguing. Nothing more. Again, your modus operandi.
Errrrrr....Is English your language?

Your answer sucks. Everyone moans about taxes....it just is not a white thing.

Yet people here like GR complain that their tax liabilities are more because white people just don't get the same treatment as everyone else.
Its not that my answer sucks, its that someone raises the issue of skin colour in rants about their tax.

Tax day?
Yes tax day , it was in the newspapers, you know the news which you suggested people should wake up and read.

Lest we forget sales tax and property taxes that have risen in the past two years. The tax system is more complex than just what the Federal Government is taxing.

So when he said about income tax for the majority of people he meant income tax for the majority of people . Damn that was unexpected :har:
Since those are local taxes for local people by local government you mention what does that have to do with the president?

No it would not. There was no history of a mass of non-voters making their way to the polls then stopping. This was the first unprecidented turn out...ever!

Errrrrr......lets do that and this
No I can't. Please elaborate.

What is the pattern of voter turnout between main elections and the mid terms?
If even regular voters are less inclined to turn out for mid terms what would that suggest of those who rarely vote anyway?

No, the topic is the broken promise of many by Obama.
For starters the topic started off with some conspiracy about a magic amnesty giving instant citizenship so the President could add millions of new votes to his party in the mid terms.
Then it was revived with an appeal for people who voted last time to vote again which apparently proves the conspiracy about millions of instant citizens voting in the mid terms.
But if you want to deal with the "broken promises" .
Seriously, he is a politician, do you expect any different?

[AVGWarhawk]

Errrrrrrrrr.........

[SteamWake]

For starters the topic started off with some conspiracy about a magic amnesty giving instant citizenship so the President could add millions of new votes to his party in the mid terms.

Errrr


U.S. Democratic Party leaders said last week that an overhaul of immigration law could advance through Congress this year if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Harry+Reid&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) can pick up enough support to muscle it through the Senate first, according to April 22 remarks by Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi told reporters that she will find the votes for the measure in the House -- where Democrats have 254 of 435 seats -- if the Senate can clear it.

Senator Lindsey Graham (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Lindsey+Graham&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a South Carolina Republican who has been working with Democrats on an immigration overhaul, said rushing legislation this year would be a mistake because it doesn’t have the votes yet to pass.


Hey look its magic !

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap2TZkCU0SSg

and heres some 'new voters !"

A vote on the future of Puerto Rico has created a rift in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, with two of the most prominent Hispanic members of Congress lining up against a House bill while the Puerto Rico delegate backs the legislation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36380.html

[Tribesman]

U.S. Democratic Party leaders said last week that an overhaul of immigration law
Wow an overhaul of immigration law, just what people from both parties have been after for ages.
Thats amazing, it isn't your fictional magic instant voter plan though is it.

Hey look its magic !

Magic???non citizens amazingly get a vote then?:rotfl2:

and heres some 'new voters !"
wow citizens of the United States that are residents of unincorporated territory of the United States...so what has that got to do with illegal immigrants?


Simple question for ya steamwake, see if it can penetrate all that tin foil.
If(and that is a very big if) federal immigration law gets overhauled before the election, and if the legislation makes it all the way through the ratification and enaction process before the election , and if that legislation is passed with an amnesty provision included how on earth can it possibly make instant citizens and voters when every amnesty program or proposed program has involved current illegal aliens starting a long process for applications aimed at possibly eventually gaining citizenship.

[AVGWarhawk]

Magic???non citizens amazingly get a vote then?:rotfl2:


Yep...so do dead one's and sometime folks get to vote two or three times. Just ask ACORN...oh nevermind. :doh:

[tater]

Democratic immigration overhauls... like giving illegals DLs here in NM?

Amnesty rewards criminal behavior, period. I'm against it regardless of what party or party members support it. Make illegals leave, then come back. I'm fine with putting those fluent in english to the front of the line, but they still need to GTFO, form a LINE and come in legally.

That's the definition of civilization, BTW, spontaneously forming lines. ;) I want no one to become a citizen who doesn't GTF in line like a decent, civilized person.

[SteamWake]

Wow an overhaul of immigration law, just what people from both parties have been after for ages.
Thats amazing, it isn't your fictional magic instant voter plan though is it.


Magic???non citizens amazingly get a vote then?:rotfl2:


wow citizens of the United States that are residents of unincorporated territory of the United States...so what has that got to do with illegal immigrants?


Simple question for ya steamwake, see if it can penetrate all that tin foil.
If(and that is a very big if) federal immigration law gets overhauled before the election, and if the legislation makes it all the way through the ratification and enaction process before the election , and if that legislation is passed with an amnesty provision included how on earth can it possibly make instant citizens and voters when every amnesty program or proposed program has involved current illegal aliens starting a long process for applications aimed at possibly eventually gaining citizenship.

Sure just like they ratified and enacted 'process' with the health care bill.

They will do everything in their power to bring these 'votes' in.

[Tribesman]

Sure just like they ratified and enacted 'process' with the health care bill.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

They will do everything in their power to bring these 'votes' in.
Really ?
You have come up with a crackpot conspiracy theory and each time you post your "proof" you post things that are unrelated to your little theory, every time a pertinant question is asked about your seemingly crazy claims you post even more nonsense.

[tater]

Regarding getting votes in Congress, that's how they do it. They will buy votes off with pork. That always happens. IMO, there should be a rule limiting bills by subject. The budget is clearly tricky, since pork is spending.

I'd rather have them have to vote on many smaller bills though, than, say, and immigration bill that also contains funds for a bridge in this district, support for something else in THAT district, etc. No easy way around it though.

As a reality check, the Washington Administration insisted that the US heavy frigates (Constitution, President, United States, etc) all be built in different districts, and from materials that came from even more districts. This was to insure broad support, lol.

[SteamWake]

Time to reserect this mispelled thread again..

Yea... about those votes... who needs them?


Source: Administration Weighs Bypassing Congress to Let Illegal Immigrants Stay

The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/source-administration-weighing-unilateral-legalization-illegal-immigrants/

[Platapus]

So you got this from fox news who heard about it from an unnamed Bush administration official (no conflict of interest there), who heard it from "three guys" but no names. :up:

Sounds like a credible story to me. Especially since this unnamed official talked with THREE unnamed guys. Now if this unnamed Bush official only talked to one unnamed guy, the story would not have any credibility.

Maybe I can be interviewed by Fox news?

I work with this guy who was talking to another guy whose mother swears she saw Elvis.....film at 11.

:har:

[Tchocky]

I was the source, consider it a journalistic experiment.

[Sailor Steve]

...reserect...mispelled...
Speaking of which...:D

[SteamWake]

So you got this from fox news who heard about it from an unnamed Bush administration official (no conflict of interest there), who heard it from "three guys" but no names. :up:

Sounds like a credible story to me. Especially since this unnamed official talked with THREE unnamed guys. Now if this unnamed Bush official only talked to one unnamed guy, the story would not have any credibility.

Maybe I can be interviewed by Fox news?

I work with this guy who was talking to another guy whose mother swears she saw Elvis.....film at 11.

:har:

You know what... I hope your right :salute:

[Tribesman]

Yea... about those votes... who needs them?

Classic:har::har::har::har::har::har:

[SteamWake]

Amid cries for tougher enforcement and more boots on the ground along the border, President Obama will try to seize the reins of the roiling national debate over immigration Thursday in a speech calling for a comprehensive legislative solution.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/obama-argue-immigration-overhaul/

[Snestorm]

Comprehensive legislative solution????

USA's problem is not in lack of legislation but,
the government's refusal to enforce that legislation.

Does Obama seriousely believe the american people are so stupid?

[AVGWarhawk]

Yea...more amnesty. More revolving door into the US. Have fun, make some money get killed..... needs to stop


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/01/shootout-drug-migrant-trafficking-gangs-near-border-leaves-dead-598299465/

[SteamWake]

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Yea I know reserecting and old thread but he topic is still relevant.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/