I think it’s wrongheaded to assume that every person who crosses the border is just doing it for the ‘goodies’…

Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of “goodies”, then, wouldn’t it? If a functioning economy is a goodie — and I think it is — then you’re wrong. High quality, free emergency health care (don’t tell the Democrats!), tons o’ jobs, social security, lowish taxes, Walmart. Yep, they’re coming for the goodies.

What the hell do you think they come here for?

If Mexicans are just trying to get away from corruption, then someone explain to me why they come to Chicago (we just elected the retarded son of the convalescing county board President as his replacement).

I think it’s wrongheaded to assume that every person who crosses the border is just doing it for the ‘goodies,’ just as it’s foolish to assume there are ‘jobs Americans won’t do.’ One of the main reasons we can’t get anywhere with this debate is because neither side is willing to let go of certain wrong assumptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuHZcHkqbSI

Where I live we are spending $300 million dollars just to build new schools for the illegal aliens. They are destroying our country from within.

Coleman, Collins, Hagel, (Sununu voted ‘NAY” on 2611), are up for re-election in ’08, and the voters will remember which Reps voted to quash a Rep-lead filibuster in both ’08 AND ’10. Salazar set the precedent. Watch the Rep abstentions denying the Dems the “magic 60″. “Political suicide” is the operative word. The Reps will “sink or swim” together. Individual heroism is not likely. “Stay-at-homes” and/or third party are on the minds of every Rep politician.

Like Kyl says, the question is whether they have the votes. Do they? Only 36 Senators voted against the Senate immigration bill back in May and three of those were Democrats. Gulp….

The Mexicans who come over the border illegally will NEVER EVER EVER vote Republican. They want all the freebies -which the Democrats are more than happy to promise them.

Nonsense on stilts. Got any citation for this assertion?

Unless you’re willing to pay for their education, free healthcare, etc… you’ll NEVER win them over.

So, comprehensive immigration is a new voting base for the Democrats, period!

Yes. These 14 Senators decided to keep the fillibuster on judges in place until this Congress ends in December. But, they also agreed that the agreement would disolve if the filibuster was improperly used to block an otherwise worthy judge.

What these 14 judges did was not unconstitutional, any more that arranging party line votes on bills are unconstitutional. But it kept the status quo with a threat that the 7 Repubilcans WOULD disolve the agreement and vote FOR removing the ability to filibuster judge confirmation votes if push came to shove.

I’m finding certain posters here to be obnoxious and insulting and I would rather not have to read their postings.

I am not asking you to ban anyone, I just would like to ahve the ability to not have to read the blatherings of certain individuals.

Please consider it.

Thanks

The issue of opposing the use of the filibuster was in carrying out the CONSTITIONAL DUTY of consenting to the appointment of judges. The opposition to the filibuster was narrowly focused on that topic and not with respect to the consideration of normal legislation.

The Constitution is quite clear at specifying when supermajorities are necessary for either House to approve a measure. Only a bare majority (51 Senators) is require to approve a judge, as the Constitution does not require otherwise.

The problem was that the Democrats used the filibuster to require a SUPERMAJORITY to end the debate before calling the vote on approving a judge. This effectively required that there be 60 YEA votes to confirm a judge.

The word “filibuster” is not in the Constitution. It was an invention imposed by a Senate rule (an agreement among the majority of Senators) that procedurally, debate could not be forced to end and a vote taken on an bill without a supermajority of 60 Senators.

This defeats the ability of the Senate, however, to fulfill it’s constitutional duty to consent with respect to the appointment of judges. What allowing filibusters for Senate confirmation votes effectively does is AMEND THE CONSTITUTION without following the proper form to amend, because the number of Senator needed to approve a judge suddenly becomes 60, not 51.

The move to filibuster judge confirmation votes was an obstructionist ploy by the Democrats to prevent the President from appointing judges that they didn’t approve of. It was a massive reversal of senate tradition and it destroyed what civility was left between Republicans and Demcorats.

Put down the crack pipe Grebrook. Many Republican commentators (Bill Kristol included) predicted huge losses for the Republicans – in fact, far larger than was actually realized. In fact, the Dems did not win by as large a majority as many conservative commentators and analysts were predicting they would.

Yes they did. Last time I checked, Republicans were claiming that if the Dems won, it would only be a marginal 4 or 5 seats. In fact, they won by a 14-15 seat margin that gives them the same majority the Republicans essentially had.

So no, you are, in fact, wrong. Very few conservative commentators predicted the Dems would win to begin with. most claimed that gerrymandering would save the GOP. It did save a good 12-25 seats.

There were no Republican commentators honestly predicting larger than 30 seat losses and you know it. Even Larry Sabato only predicted a 26-seat Democratic pick up.

Republicans are actually going to INCREASE their majority this year!

Oh wa-

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 1:19 AM

Put down the crack pipe Grebrook. Many Republican commentators (Bill Kristol included) predicted huge losses for the Republicans – in fact, far larger than was actually realized. In fact, the Dems did not win by as large a majority as many conservative commentators and analysts were predicting they would.

So, I’m calling “back up” on you, not vice versa and don’t give me faceless polls!

Yeah, kind of like those polls that showed you heading for defeat last Tuesday that you ignored all year long, right? Yeah, man! Polls are all lies! Liberal lies! Republicans are actually going to INCREASE their majority this year!

Oh wa-

Back up your assertions with fact and no more, “I personally have spoken with many Mexicans who

I live in Texas, buddy, where we’ve had many, many waves of illegals my whole life long whereas you, pal, obviously live in the East and are acquainted with Mexicans from “polls.”
So, I’m calling “back up” on you, not vice versa and don’t give me faceless polls!

It’s become clear that no one on this blog can actually back up their argument with facts, just more personal observation.

Yes we know: you’re all about the “facts”. Why not take your seat, wipe the spittle from your monitor and I believe you’ll see many facts – albeit none you, alone, can agree with. Slublog just hit it with this:

44% of Hispanics who voted in 2004 voted for President Bush, an increase of 10 percent from 2000. Their vote was a decisive factor in a few states.

I believe Hispanics didn’t vote for Republicans this year for the same reasons as other voters – they were tired of the party in power seeming indifferent to the voters. Add in the harsh rhetoric from some anti-illegal immigration voters and you have the reason for the lower support.

As for exit polls, they are notoriously misleading.

I believe Hispanics didn’t vote for Republicans this year for the same reasons as other voters – they were tired of the party in power seeming indifferent to the voters. Add in the harsh rhetoric from some anti-illegal immigration voters and you have the reason for the lower support.

The Hispanic vote is not something you can take for granted.