Video: Liebs says McCain did not support amnesty for illegal aliens

posted at 11:20 am on January 5, 2008 by Bryan

Yes, Joe-mentum, he did, consistently from at least 2003 through the last fight over the issue in 2007. There is no denying this and it doesn’t serve the voters or the truth to pretend that it’s not true. Stop insulting our intelligence.

But Lieberman goes farther than just pretending that McCain didn’t support amnesty, as McCain himself pretended on December 30. He says that to say that McCain did support amnesty is a lie.

So, Joe Lieberman is either calling John McCain or the Tucson Citizen a liar. From 2003, I quote:

“McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: “Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.” The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: “I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.”

I count twice in that paragraph that McCain used the word — amnesty — to describe the thing he favored — amnesty. So who’s the liar?

Of course, even if McCain can somehow prove that he didn’t say what the Citizen quoted him as saying, it’s beyond clear that what he pushed via back room deals in 2006 and again in 2007 was an amnesty. They didn’t call it an amnesty, but an amnesty was what it was.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

By the way…FYI…leaving now to get away from the computer and see the outside.

No hard feelings. Everyone have a very nice day!

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Let me explain….I’m not saying we should. But it’s if you’re argument is well it’s illegal then it’s just as easy let’s find a way to let them stay legally.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

And BTW,

DfD (Democrats for Deportation)…and I am NOT alone out here…

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Let me explain….I’m not saying we should. But it’s if you’re argument is well it’s illegal then it’s just as easy let’s find a way to let them stay legally.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Let me explain…WE already have “pathway” to being LEGAL. They have refused, willfully to participate in that process and continue to refuse to participate. Show them the door!

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Let me explain….I’m not saying we should. But it’s if you’re argument is well it’s illegal then it’s just as easy let’s find a way to let them stay legally.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Having been involved in an issue that pretty much played out this way, as well, let me simply spell this out…

1) Illegal immigrants- regardless of ethnicity- are here illegally. Do we agree?

2) Until the law states that any or all of them are legal, they are still illegal. Do we agree?

3) Since laws are not “optional” in our society, enforce the law. Do we agree?

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

3) By providing incentives for migrant workers who want to work here to do so legally, and disincentives for undocumented ones, …

There is no rational economic OR security argument for preventing Latin Americans who want to work here legally in menial, unskilled jobs from doing so.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

They are not ‘undocumented’ – they have fake or stolen ID, as I’m sure you know by now, as a MM reader.

There is a very strong psychological and legal reason not to reward law breakers: you encourage more law-breaking. We have proven with 7 amnesties since 1986 that rewarding law breakers with “legalization” just encourages more law breaking. It is not a disincentive to cast a magic wand and grant legal status on someone who crossed our border illegally.

Allowing, permitting, and encouraging an underclass of low paid (less than minimum and/or competitive if legal) workers, who are exploited by coyotes, human traffickers, and unscrupulous employers, should never be an “economic” solution in a lawful society.

AZ, OK, and TN (and more states to come) have it right: remove the illegal economic incentive to come here, let illegal aliens self-deport. I would love to pay twice as much for lettuce if I knew the workers were legal, fairly paid, well-treated, and checked for drug-resistant TB.

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Incidentally, my bad on the Wyoming numbers. The ACTUAL numbers are:

Romney- 4

The rest are alternates.

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

All I was trying to say that people on the other side of the immigration debate can easily say if what bothers you is that they are here illegally then we can change our immigration laws that let them stay and work here legally for a period time. I’m not saying I agree with that argument but that’s what others will argue.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Its not amnesty! They had to pay a fine! And with that fine they would receive a free work visa, immunity for all back taxes, the ability to bring all their relatives here, vote, collect welfare, receive tax payer paid for immigrations lawyers…..

And the country of Mexico would have received billions of dollars in financing for their public education system (with no oversight)

and come on folks, illegal alien gangs had to sign a handwritten note denouncing crime.

You call that amnesty. Sheesh.

GogglesPisano on January 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM

And BTW,

DfD (Democrats for Deportation)…and I am NOT alone out here…

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Indeed, you are not alone! Democrats are not far behind Republicans on this issue. Check this very illuminating Zogby survey.

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 2:19 PM

There is no rational economic OR security argument for preventing Latin Americans who want to work here legally in menial, unskilled jobs from doing so.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Are you trying to say that artificially depressed wage scales are good for the economy? And, they ARE artificial because the illegality of the labor pool doesn’t address natural supply/demand of our economic system. It allows a larger supply of labor into the equation than would otherwise exist. Your argument could just as well be made for slavery.

a capella on January 5, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Oops! I see you qualified them as legal. My bad.

a capella on January 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM

This is the only part I’m gonna answer to, Dave.
They broke the law, and get a pass for it. Citizens don’t get that.

So you’ve never jaywalked, spit on the sidewalk, or driven 1 MPH over the speed limit, eh?

You live in NC, so did you know that it’s against the law for an unwed couple to have sex there? Think anybody’s getting a pass on that one?

Oral sex is also strictly against the law in NC. Suppose a few people have gotten away with it anyhow, maybe once or twice?

Just so you stay on the right side of the law, it is also illegal, in NC, to sing off-key.

Know why these laws aren’t enforced? Because the laws exist to serve our needs, not the other way around.

I believe in the rule of law AND I’m not cutting folks slack that come in illegally and proceed to take from the tax payer without paying taxes themselves. Sorry, but the rest of it is just rhetoric to me.

I see, so it all comes down to vindictiveness and resentment. At least you’re honest about that much.

You’re making that “jobs Americans won’t do” argument on deaf ears. Because the premise is pure, unadulterated bullshite.

We can agree on the security aspects. But don’t you dare tell me I’m making a purely emotional argument, when I’m not.

(Translation: I won’t address your points, in fact I’m going to cover my ears to avoid even listening to them and then dismiss them with a crude vulgarity. But don’t you dare tell me I’m making an emotional argument.)

If you won’t even pretend to offer any rational basis for your position, then that’s exactly what you’re doing, my friend.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM

I had no idea Lieberman was such a comedian!

Unfortunately, he’s about as funny as Woody Allen.

Weebork on January 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM

I’m really sick to death of hearing this insulting McCainiac refrain…

“We believe that all of these people are God’s Children. We believe that they were created in God’s image. And we need to address this issue in a compassionate and caring issue.”

…as rationale for the imposition upon us, via mass migration, of peoples who come here primarily because their cultures have long histories of failure, and not because they have any true desire to become American. And why is it so wrong to even question whether or not some people just aren’t a good fit for us?

The thing that I find so astoundingly poisonous in these petty attempts to shame us for having the audacity to care more for our own families and children than we care for the family or child of any alien who imposes himself upon us outside the bounds of our established rules of welcome is that there never is any mention of the American citizen child born of American citizen parents for inclusion in the discussion about how we should show our compassion.

What I demand to know from this pestilent weasel McCain is why he favors the subjects of foreign governments to my child. While it is true that we all are God’s children, we have an obligation to care for our own child before the alien child. What McCain wants to do…create another permanent ethnocentric cleft in our society…is something completely untested and radical.

As a conservative, I demand proof from those who would impose such an unknown and irreversible alteration of culture upon my child and descendants that such change will not bring the slightest harm upon their prospects for living in an America that is as good, as prosperous, as free from internecine strife and as culturally cohesive as the one my ancestors provided to my generation. I believe it is my responsibility as steward to make such demands no matter how these bastards would paint my concern; being called a racist or xenophobe is a small price to pay for doing right by my child.

If these zealots cannot prove incontrovertibly that their proposed innovations via mass immigration are completely benign, then they should STFU. It’s a good idea to remember that we’re all God’s children, but if we fail to uphold the counterbalance ideal that God made nations for a reason while we exercise the compassion that McCain demands we hold dear, then we surely have not lived up to God’s intentions.

There’s a certain evil in McCain’s conflations that is most un-Godly and disgusting.

It goes beyond the pale for any conservative to “take a hit” on the immigration issue to favor a candidate who, superficially, appears strong on defense and the size of government.

Why?

First, because in the long run, a multicultural nation requires ever-increasing government impositions to keep peace among(or kowtow to) various ethnocentric interests. Secondly, the more diverse a society is, the less allegiant it can be to a nation; for instance, since the 1960′s we have had a rapid increase in the number of hyphenated Americans who consider the identity before the hyphen to be equally or more important than their Americanism. And the affinity to the foreign remains through the generations, thanks to the anti-assmilation bent of multiculturalists, in ways we have not ever seen in America.

So, today we already have myriad potential clefts that are too likely to become fifth columns in times of strife, economic crisis or war. Considering these two points, it’s absurd not to place immigration on equal, if not greater, footing with issues related to government size and strong defense. Immigration affects both.

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I’ve never intentionally paid somebody to smuggle me into a country so as to avoid their immigration process, nor have I ever used somebody elses SS# and ruined that persons good name, nor have I ever screwed a 13 year old girl and run to the local Consulate and claim I didn’t know of such a cultural difference so as to be charged with statutory rape, nor have I killed an American on the highway while driving drunk, nor have….

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:38 PM

McCain is the Devils brother. You know…The Huckster.

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Are you trying to say that artificially depressed wage scales are good for the economy? And, they ARE artificial because the illegality of the labor pool doesn’t address natural supply/demand of our economic system. It allows a larger supply of labor into the equation than would otherwise exist. Your argument could just as well be made for slavery.

I don’t agree that there’s anything artificial about the wage scale. There is a labor market, and there are buyers and sellers of labor competing in it. The price that emerges is no more or less artificial than the price of anything else. How is buying labor from a Mexican any different than buying a TV made by a factory in China? In both cases, the ability to purchase the product at a lower cost raises our standard of living.

To the extent the immigration laws prevent the market from being efficient (in the textbook sense), then yes, we would do better to change the laws. Adam Smith said so in 1776, and he’s still right.

I don’t see where there is any parallel to slavery. Slavery is a moral wrong, become it is based on the denial of basic freedoms to a fellow human being. If migrants found the wages offered here too low to interest them they would stay home and work for the (presumably better) wages offered there. I see nothing bad about low-cost imported, menial, unskilled labor that fills an important niche in our economy. It’s analogous to having a neighboring country that wanted to sell us crude oil cheaper than we could pump it out of the ground ourselves – would you turn them away?

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 2:51 PM

And BTW,

DfD (Democrats for Deportation)…and I am NOT alone out here…

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM

I was listening yesterday to a “self-professed Democrat” who is a doctor at the hospital where I am employed at.

She is so fed up with illegal immigration and law-breakers who are receiving free healthcare in the ER that she no longer associates herself anymore with the Democrat Party.

She said the Democrat Party left her.

ColtsFan on January 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Watching these two operate is like watching life on another planet.

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Yes, and another planet that should be under intergalactic quarantine.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Published reports that Fred Thompson soon will withdraw from the Republican presidential contest and endorse Sen. John McCain have been traced in part to Mitt Romney’s campaign, trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson.

From: Bob Novak 2/5/08

Ex-tex on January 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Seriously? I thought it seemed fishy and said so in the HotAir Headline comments at the time.

And if true, it suggests that Romney was probably the source for Politico’s BS article from a few days ago.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM

We need to pick a Republican who can beat either Clinton or Obama, and right now that looks like McCain. If you don’t want Clinton or Obama, I don’t know what else your going to do.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

McCain might be able to beat Clinton, but Obama would bury him.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM

How will he secure the border, is what I want to know. Did he really say “round up those people” when refering to illegals that have comitted crimes? That might offend some people. tisk tisk.

oakpack on January 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM

From: Bob Novak 2/5/08

FloatingRock on January 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Bob Novak is about as reliable as what you see at the grocery store checkout.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM

a multicultural nation requires ever-increasing government impositions to keep peace among(or kowtow to) various ethnocentric interests. Secondly, the more diverse a society is, the less allegiant it can be to a nation; for instance, since the 1960’s we have had a rapid increase in the number of hyphenated Americans who consider the identity before the hyphen to be equally or more important than their Americanism

Not true. We have a multicultural nation right now and our country is not in shambles. If our country is divided right now it has nothing to do with peoples cultural background but a big disagreement on values.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM

I was listening yesterday to a “self-professed Democrat” who is a doctor at the hospital where I am employed at.

She is so fed up with illegal immigration and law-breakers who are receiving free healthcare in the ER that she no longer associates herself anymore with the Democrat Party.

She said the Democrat Party left her.

ColtsFan on January 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM

The New Direction Democrats have told me, a Moderate Democrat, that there is “no more room for people like ME in their Party”! Pretty much sums it up!

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Reporter: Senator McCain, is it true that if you become President you will put a real fence along the border with Mexico rather than some phony so called “virtual fence”? And a follow up question sir, if so what will the physical fence look like?

John McCain: That is a very good question and yes if I become President I will put up a physical fence. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special security gates every 100 feet.

All the security gates will have on them:

1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo, my country is your country and please take a free map to the wonderful plantation owner employer of your choice”).

2) Press two for English (with a response of “Go to Hell you damed bigoted nativist lazy slacker who does not want what is right for Norte America!!!”).

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM

LD would try to have you believe you can score points in a basketball game without being on the team. LD is an OPEN BORDERS ZEALOT. He’s a Loony Lib plant here…that’s okay. Keep talking, and before you know it…90%, not 80%, 90% of Americans will be calling for the deportations.

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM

If our country is divided right now it has nothing to do with peoples cultural background but a big disagreement on values.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Yup, a big disagreement on the value of being a nation!!!

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Yup, a big disagreement on the value of being a nation!!!

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Yeah, some just can’t get the value of assimilation very well, can they?

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Yup, a big disagreement on the value of being a nation!!!

Yes and you don’t have to be of particular cultural background that America should stay a strong nation.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM

It’s not amnesty – it’s much worse!! Would this policy discourage you or encourage you to also try to sneak into our country? That is why we must remove ALL REWARDS!

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Nailed it.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Bob Novak is about as reliable as what you see at the grocery store checkout.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM

You might as well bone up on defending your candidate, MB4, because as long as Mitt Smarmney remains in the race damage control will be in high demand.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2008 at 3:33 PM

… LD is an OPEN BORDERS ZEALOT. He’s a Loony Lib plant here…that’s okay….
DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM

“Undocumented” is the dead giveaway. In case you have forgotten: MM’s excellent post on this subject.

I also note he avoided responding to any of my cool, calm, logic.

70 to 80% of American citizens were against the McCain shamnesty/REWARDS bill; they CLOSED DOWN the Capitol switchboard in protest. Never before have so many Americans been united in anger at a sitting President and his fellow sympathizers in Congress than on this issue.

Jeff Sessions ’08!!!!!

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM

I’m really sick to death of hearing this insulting McCainiac refrain…

“We believe that all of these people are God’s Children. We believe that they were created in God’s image. And we need to address this issue in a compassionate and caring issue.”

…as rationale for the imposition upon us, via mass migration, of peoples who come here primarily because their cultures have long histories of failure, and not because they have any true desire to become American. And why is it so wrong to even question whether or not some people just aren’t a good fit for us?

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans want to remain citizens of their home country while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I, Mexico allowed German spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S.. During World War II, Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today, Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don’t believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.
- David J. Stoddard, 27 year veteran of the Border Patrol

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Jeff Sessions ‘08!!!!!

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Jeff Sessions/Lou Dobbs

SecDef – Tommy Franks

SecState – Diana West

DHS – Tom Tancrdo

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:40 PM

I heartily recommend this site for national coverage on what’s going on it each state – legislation, law suits, and crime – on this issue.

The left-hand column has all the news.

Off to work! have fun with LD.

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Ambassador to Mexico City – Juan McShamnasty

Ambassador to Baghdad – Joseph Lieberman

Both appointments to be in perpetuity.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM

We have a multicultural nation right now and our country is not in shambles. If our country is divided right now it has nothing to do with peoples cultural background but a big disagreement on values.

Obviously, Terryanne is for open borders and cares not one bit about heritage or culture or stewardship. Following a couple of links from her site proves that pretty quickly. She’s young and clueless and obviously hasn’t been affected harmfully by the invasion.

Let’s look at an eye-opening quote of hers:

May America always welcome the poor, huddled masses and let the church steeple remain a sign of sanctuary.

That’s quite an interesting position, because it basically equates a poetry contest winner to the Founding generation. But it’s not unusual for an enthocentrist like her to do all she can to make sure that her people are empowered to promote their own interests in a nation not of their own making.

Terryanne’s words throughout this thread prove the prescience of Jefferson’s warnings regarding immigration in Notes on Virginia. In it he wrote of immigrants…

[their] principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

…and Terryanne would have us not notice that we’re being balkanized (although it’s quite clear to those of us who have fled such areas) because we’re also divided about values.

Absurd.

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Thank you for visiting my Web site. I don’t get many hits so that’s great:)

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM

1) Illegal immigrants- regardless of ethnicity- are here illegally. Do we agree?

2) Until the law states that any or all of them are legal, they are still illegal. Do we agree?

3) Since laws are not “optional” in our society, enforce the law. Do we agree?

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Happy Birthday wccawa!!! May you live healthy, happy, and long!

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Nailed it.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM

+1 – it’s not only the fence, it’s the honey. I also don’t blame the people who want to and come here – I blame the overlords, the employers/government, and both parties, who do it with different drivers in mind.

terryann, you’re a nice person and I will refrain from too much analysis against your simple takes – bottom line, if this continues we will no longer be a nation of laws (in fact we already aren’t any more and are slipping fast), but will be a similar nation to Venezuela, or Mexico. Anarchy and corruption will rule.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM

MB4, who’s Diana West’s choice for president – asked on the Pentagon thread, and so did someone else – yes, I know I could google – but please provide answer, if you care to.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM

And, tickleddragon, you’re en fuego today, more so than usual even :)

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Any nation that increases its immigration flow at the same time it increases its social entitlement programs is committing economic suicide

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Thank you for visiting my Web site. I don’t get many hits so that’s great:)

I’m a strong believer in the wisdom of Sun-Tzu:

“Know your enemy.”

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Oh, and BTW Terryanne, it’s noted that you have no true rebuttal to anything I’ve written here…

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 4:33 PM

MB4, who’s Diana West’s choice for president – asked on the Pentagon thread, and so did someone else – yes, I know I could google – but please provide answer, if you care to.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM

I don’t know, that’s why I asked Pierre Legrand who I knew from many moons ago to be a big fan of hers.

He indicated that it probably was Tancredo till he dropped out, but as of now?

I would just guess Romney, as Tancredo endorsed him as did sheriff Joe, but maybe Fred.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Oh, and BTW Terryanne, it’s noted that you have no true rebuttal to anything I’ve written here…

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Well there is always flower power.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM

“Know your enemy.”

kdaddy, why am I your enemy?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Terryanne

Oh, and my name is Terry Ann ok.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 4:43 PM

I’m a strong believer in the wisdom of Sun-Tzu:

“Know your enemy.”

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

In the practical art of war, you must be prepared to fight at any time in the future. In the impractical art of war, you should have been prepared quite some time ago, and it’s probably already too late. You’re screwed.
- Sun Tzu’s Nephew

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Well there is always flower power.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM

kdaddy and MB4, be nice to the as-of-yet-naive youngin’. Remember that saying about young/older, liberal/conservative thing…

Terryanne is nice and will look back at this and hopefully learn and smile some day. Us, a bit older ones, know this already. Some of us, self-included, were fortunate to never have been naive, at least not politically/ideologically.

FC, thanks for the reply – will keep an eye out for the answer.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Terry Ann, I sincerely apologive for also having mistyped your name. Generally I try to keep the entire nom de plume, and not doing that gets me in trouble. No excuse here, though.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM

FC, are you back to normal, healthwise that is? :)

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:48 PM

kdaddy, why am I your enemy?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM

And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and
principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a (wo)man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Oh, and BTW Terryanne, it’s noted that you have no true rebuttal to anything I’ve written here…

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 4:33 PM

You didn’t respond to my argument that it has nothing to with multiculturalism why America is divided, instead, you called me an ethnocentrist.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM

- Sun Tzu’s Nephew

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Arful – what a great trick – to say whatever you wish, and atribute to whatever role you imagine. Never seen it before, but it works, and it entertains greatly. Your Corvette kitty is growing.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:53 PM

FC, are you back to normal, healthwise that is? :)

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:48 PM

My cold is about 80-90% gone.

My normality level is at about 10%, which is actually at the high range for me. Probably some lingering side effect from the cold.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:57 PM

YOU ARE DEAD WRONG, LagDave
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

At that time, the illegal alien population was estimated to be about five million persons. The estimated fiscal cost of those illegal aliens to the federal, state and local governments was about $33 billion. This impact was partially offset by an estimated $12.6 billion in taxes paid to the federal, state and local governments, resulting in a net cost to the American taxpayer of about $20 billion every year. This estimate did not include indirect costs that result from unemployment payments to Americans who lost their jobs to illegal aliens willing to work for lower wages. Nor did it include lost tax collections from those American workers who became unemployed. The study estimated those indirect costs from illegal immigration at an additional $4.3 billion annually.

HERE IS THE INFO Just ONE stop shopping, but there are many more sources of true info for you.
While here-on HA.com, try reading Michelle’s book, you might learn something.
ILLEGALS cost us $19,000 per illegal, per year. Thats a NET DEFICIT. They do NOTHING but drain our economy. Get some real numbers before you try that crap here laguna.
.
terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM
As for TerryAnn…you’re too emotionally invested , too young, and too ‘involved’ to listen so I won’t even try.
( yes, I looked at your blog, it’s ‘self’ evident)

shooter on January 5, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Don’t blame the cold – that’s an excuse – just embrace the low level – I do, and it’s marvelous. Among other advantages, it’s easier to accept much in life, and it lets you get away with much. Note again, that I already knew that percentage about you (takes one…), thus my qualified question. Glad you are almost good healthwise, on a serious note.

for a (wo)man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Given that this could apply here too, two things:

1. Remember your oft-repeated good-deeds quote, which is great. Not to confuse those with 100% ignorant goodness here, ever.
2. There’s a difference btw. general goodness, and fighting wars, real/abstract, big/small ones. You want to be with me in a war situation. You can take that to the bank.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:02 PM

terryannonline,

There are a very great many points worthy of consideration on immigration reform and many of them impact the very fabric of our Republic I will give you two to consider:

1) It is manifestly unjust to give citizenship to those that break the law. Not only is it a disservice to those who do it legally, the health of a nation is dependent on the citizens’ willingness to abide by law.

2) The counter-argument is retain workers without citizenship. This creates an artifical second class. You may have heard in high school the famous rallying cry – no taxation without representation. Representation is the defining characteristic of a republic, and the birthing cry of ours. It is unjust to keep workers without citizenship.

Therefore, one must enforce the law. There is no other appropriate option.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

kdaddy, why am I your enemy?

You are a feaux conservative (ignorant of what conservatism actually is) and are clearly an ethnocentrist who has no respect for my heritage and would have it transmogrified into something I consider potentially awful. You would have it done for your own interests…and then insist that it’s a proper legacy for me to hand down to my descendants.

From what you’ve published, it’s clear you’re a multiculturalist with designs on altering this nation’s custom, convention and continuity. You show no respect for heritage threads going back hundreds of generations in Western Civilization, and instead try to make concerns for heritage oblique and overshadowed by concerns about values; it would be inconvenient (impossible?) for you to truly and fully adopt American heritage, so let’s discuss values instead. Therefore, I think its a safe bet to classify you as a threat to my daughter still having a truly American heritage to hand down to her kids. You and those who agree with you would make it a thought crime for folks like me to even care about what our ancestors did.

I see people who think like you…believe like you…to be a threat to my child’s future. And any threat to my child’s future, I consider to be an enemy. Got it?

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

You didn’t respond to my argument that it has nothing to with multiculturalism why America is divided,

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM

There are more than one reasons why America is divided. This you will learn the hard way – PC, multiculturalism, and a few other -isms will kill us, kill having more than one meaning. You’ve got it harder/longer to suffer than those of us who’ve lived and prospered in the absolute best of times in America, in the world history for that matter.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

In regard to “do it” in point 1, I mean those who immigrate legally.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 5:07 PM

you’re too emotionally invested

It doesn’t rile me up one way or the other to be honest. Maybe it should but it just simply doesn’t. I actually think you guys make a lot of good points on the issue.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

You didn’t respond to my argument that it has nothing to with multiculturalism why America is divided, instead, you called me an ethnocentrist.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Although not totally incompatible with a united nation multiculturalism sits much better with multiple nations or a balkanized nation, not with a single nation.

Separate languages, separate holidays, separate culture – guess what?

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Sorry FC, you were blaming the cold for higher than normal levels of normalcy – my bad. Just be yourself, cold/not, that’s fine by me :)

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

MB4, if you hav it easily availalbe, please repost here your great comment on the type of labor that comes here. You posted it just a few days ago (the one about certain groups coming here from Mexico, where if the U.N. would care). It would fit perfectly and clarify much. I had never thought in those terms until I saw your comment, and it all was right in front of us…

Agree fully with what you wrote Spirit.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

I misused the term on multiculturalism. I should have wrote “a multicultural demographic.” Multiculturalism is not the word I should have used, I apologize.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

MB4, if you hav it easily availalbe, please repost here your great comment on the type of labor that comes here. You posted it just a few days ago (the one about certain groups coming here from Mexico, where if the U.N. would care).

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

This one?
*
I long ago got sick and tired of the sleazy chuck-and-jive shamnesty politicians of which John McCain has been the chief ring leader. The reason that Republican supporters of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” want it is so that they and/or their campaign contributors can have serf labor. They would probably prefer actual out-and-out slaves but that is illegal thanks to Lincoln, Grant and Sherman.

The reason that shamnasty Democrats want this is so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them. Many of them probably also want to do this for the same reason that shamnasty Republicans do too.

Does anyone think that many of these shamnasty politicians really care one wit otherwise for the illegals.

Does anyone think that any of the shamnasty politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs?

Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants?

Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants?

Invite them to their cocktail parties?

Introduce them to their daughters?

The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant light-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico’s ruling class.

So the shamnasty politicians like John McCain are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing.

If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 5:24 PM

MB4, that’s really spot on.

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Yes, this one. It is a mind-opener, from more than one perspective.

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Fully agree with you kdaddy. Also, the young lady will probably vote Democrat, from other comments, but likes it here because of some good/civilized discussions. On the other hand I could be wrong and the young mind may have potential for a clearer reality. At least you Terry Ann think about these things, which is commendable for young people.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM

I misused the term on multiculturalism. I should have wrote “a multicultural demographic.” Multiculturalism is not the word I should have used, I apologize.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

That makes a huge difference.
At least if the multicultural demographic sheds it’s previous alliances. Most coming up from Mexico do not seem to and coming here illegally is not a good start anyway.

MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

1) It is manifestly unjust to give citizenship to those that break the law. Not only is it a disservice to those who do it legally, the health of a nation is dependent on the citizens’ willingness to abide by law.

Therefore, one must enforce the law. There is no other appropriate option.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

I strongly agree. The rule of law should be a foundation of any culture.

Another perspective is for one to seriously weigh the number of times amnesty or “path to USA citizenship” has been given.

How many times does amnesty have to be given rewarded to law-breakers before the citizens of the USA say, “enough is enough. No more amnesties!!”

3 times?

5 times?

7 separate amnesties?

How many more times does amnesties have to be rewarded to people whose first actions are to break the law before the citizens finally remind the politicians of their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the Constitution?

We have laws already on the books against illegal immigration.

How many more amnesties does it take for the RHINOs and the Democrats to fully understand that providing amnesties to law-breakers only encourages more illegal behavior?

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html

ColtsFan on January 5, 2008 at 5:34 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Based on this, my comment of January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM still stands, but just for general purpose, and not as a reply to you on “multiculturalism”.

Btw, a naturalized legal citizen here, who celebrates own culture/s in the home, even speaks other languages in the home, often, but follows all American norms, and respects the law, as it is written. It is entirely possible, and highly encouraged. It’s also extremely successful. And, not one person ever has a problem with it. Au contraire, Americans have been the most welcoming, indulgent, with open-arms, tolerant and helpful people imaginable.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM

the young lady will probably vote Democrat

I don’t know who I’m going to vote for. I’ve said on HotAir that I’m open to voting for Obama but I’m not sure anymore. I have no idea anymore. Right now all I know are the people I’m not voting for: Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, John Edwards, and Mike Huckabee.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Terry Ann, I want to be absolutely clear – never once have I tried to tell others how to vote. That’s entirely up to each of us. This is just discussion and I’m proud of you for being a part of it, for participating, and for thinking about these things. If you go through transformations in life on this topic, and remember us, you will smile.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 5:44 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Everything Entelechy, MB4 and others have been saying to you is absolutely true.

However, it is also absolutely true that if you are young person actually trying to vet these candidates than that is amazing. (They actually count on you not doing that you know.)

I was a towering mass of mush well into adulthood, so more power to you. You will go far.

There are many former democrat voters and liberals speaking to you here, who have made every mistake in the book and learned everything the hard way.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama’s truly appealing persona contained something else inside. I see the reason for the attraction.

And you’ve clearly eliminated the very worst of the bunch. Now, like us, you will have to settle for Mr. Less-than-perfect. Preserve America Terry Ann. I tell my Chinese daughters the same.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM

And, tickleddragon, you’re en fuego today, more so than usual even :)

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Thanks my dear friend! It looks like you are far more on fire than I was.

Oh, and to LD…Good debate tactic to answer someone you know is no longer in the conversation. I think others have answered you better in my absence. Your arguments were based on flawed assumptions, so it is pointless for me to belabor the points.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM

tickleddragon, friendly reminder, if you don’t know yet – it’s one of your guys’ birthday today, wccawa.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

it’s clear you’re a multiculturalist with designs on altering this nation’s custom, convention and continuity.

No I’m not a multiculturist. No way I’m trying to altering this nation’s custom, convention, and continuity. I went to public schools just like everyone else. I went to college and I’m trying to find a good job to be like everyone else. I go to church every weekend like many other Americans. I do
my civic duty and vote. How I’m trying to alter our nation’s
customs.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 6:22 PM

I don’t know who I’m going to vote for. I’ve said on HotAir that I’m open to voting for Obama but I’m not sure anymore. I have no idea anymore. Right now all I know are the people I’m not voting for: Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, John Edwards, and Mike Huckabee.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

terryann – I’m curious to know why you have eliminated Mike Huckabee from consideration, but not Barack Obama. I see them as pretty much the same type of politician, with the same type of message and the same type of intentions for their governing of America.

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Mike Huckabee strikes me as extremely dishonest. Yeah right, he had no idea how Fox News got the attack ad. He’s made too many gaffes. And I’m an evangelical and I don’t appreciate the whole “I’m one of you, vote for me,” tone of his message.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 6:36 PM

How many more times does amnesties have to be rewarded to people whose first actions are to break the law before the citizens finally remind the politicians of their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the Constitution?

…How many more amnesties does it take for the RHINOs and the Democrats to fully understand that providing amnesties to law-breakers only encourages more illegal behavior?

ColtsFan on January 5, 2008 at 5:34 PM

I don’t know. Seemed like last round they made their voice pretty clear, regardless of the intentional obfuscation of the message by the receiving end.

That assumes the desire to discourage it.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 6:42 PM

tickleddragon, friendly reminder, if you don’t know yet – it’s one of your guys’ birthday today, wccawa.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Thanks Entelechy. I caught that earlier and emailed him.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, WACCAWA!!! MMMMWAH!

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Mike Huckabee strikes me as extremely dishonest. Yeah right, he had no idea how Fox News got the attack ad. He’s made too many gaffes. And I’m an evangelical and I don’t appreciate the whole “I’m one of you, vote for me,” tone of his message.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 6:36 PM

I completely agree with you on Mike Huckabee and share your sentiments about him and his message.

But I see Barack Obama in a similar way. He tries to come across as above all the dirty tricks of politics and wants to be the candidate of hope and a new tone and changing politics, etc, yet he is just as dirty as the rest. He also hides his extreme liberal positions by never addressing them and instead talking a populist message. He also hides his apparent Black supremacism, evidenced by the Church he attends. He also went back on his word to get experience in politics before running for President. He was voted into office in 2004 I believe and was not even in office for 2 years when he started running for President. He is extremely unqualified, but is running on empty rhetoric, a slick speaking style, his apparent good looks, the fact he is Black, etc.

I see him the same way I see Mike Huckabee: as a wolf in sheeps clothing. His popularity comes from his idealistic naivate, ignorance of the real world and by being vaulted into the spotlight from a great idealistic speech he gave at the 2004 DNC.

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 6:58 PM

He also hides his apparent Black supremacism

Is he guilty by association?

He also went back on his word to get experience in politics before running for President.

He changed his mind. Let me put it this way, would you be

His popularity comes from his idealistic naivate, ignorance of the real world and by being vaulted into the spotlight from a great idealistic speech he gave at the 2004 DNC.

Just like Fred, just like Paul, just like Rudy, etc his popularity comes from something, but (aside from ‘the speech’) I don’t think you’ve hit on it yet;)

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Let me put it this way, would you be

‘Would I be’… what, Spirit of 1776?

Is he guilty by association?

Yes. If a Republican (or any) candidate were known to belong to the Westboro Baptist Church, I would not be supporting that candidate either.

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 7:17 PM

‘Would I be’… what, Spirit of 1776?

Weird, that’s twice in two days I’ve lost a piece of a post.

…be more inclined to vote for him in ’12, all other things being the same. If not, then I doubt that criticism even has weight in your own mind:)

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 7:21 PM

I don’t think you’ve hit on it yet;)

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 7:10 PM

So what is it Spirit?

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM

MB4/csdeven, see this, especially toward the end of it.

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 7:45 PM

…be more inclined to vote for him in ‘12, all other things being the same. If not, then I doubt that criticism even has weight in your own mind:)

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 7:21 PM

To answer your question, unless he somehow radically changes his ideology to align with conservatism, then no, I would never consider voting for him.

My point was that his supporters claim he is this great guy running on integrity and all, yet he is just as slimy as all the other politicians and will go back on his promises like all the rest if it suits his desire for power.

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 8:54 PM

No I’m not a multiculturist.

You wrote, “Yes, English is our official language and people who want to live and work here should learn it. BUT let’s not get so
sensitive about seeing signs, documents, etc. translated into
other languages.” That’s pretty much a multiculturalist sentiment to me.

No way I’m trying to altering this nation’s custom, convention, and continuity.

You haven’t ruled out Obama, which says pretty much the opposite. Pull up the biographies of all previous presidents and find me one who had a parent from anyplace outside Western Civilization.

I don’t care what shade his dad was, or what color he is, what I care about with Obama is that the handed-down stories he was told as a child absolutely must have imprinted him to be overly accommodating toward alien ideals. There just isn’t any way that the guy could ever fully comprehend what it means to have an American heritage or respect my ancestors properly.

Continuity of this sort is a prerequisite for me, and for conservatism. Even considering his candidacy requires abandoning affinity for custom and convention also. Obama’s dad disqualifies him in my book, and since you don’t reject him, it makes your contention that you respect these three conservative principles quite laughable.

I went to public schools just like everyone else.

That’s not a very good indicator of attachment to custom…it’s almost an admission that you haven’t learned to respect custom.

I went to college and I’m trying to find a good job to be like everyone else.

So? You might have gone to college in Japan and have the same feelings…except that you wouldn’t be welcome there at all if you weren’t Japanese.

I go to church every weekend like many other Americans.

Superficial. It’s not indicative of cherishing continuity.

I do my civic duty and vote.

Congrats. That’s one that actually works. And you apparently try to remain informed. Kudos.

How I’m trying to alter our nation’s customs?

You aren’t intolerant enough of aliens. Seriously. All the gibberish people believe about this “nation of immigrants” junk and how “tolerant” we have historically been toward immigrants is bunk. This nation became what it is thanks to its harsh treatment of immigrants…even the term “immigrant” was coined and used as a slur of reference to those who came after the sacrifices of the founding generation…and has until recently compelled large percentages to leave.

In the past, the custom was that those who stayed were those who most successfully abandoned the ways of their ancestors. You wrote on your blog…

But I’m just getting tired of all this complaining of illegal immigration and no one coming up with any viable solutions.

…what you’re saying is that nobody has given you a solution you can live with. The attrition through enforcement solution is the closest thing we have to following our tradition of intolerance in immigration. It appears you reject it and would prefer another way and my guess is that any solution we might devise that compels all illegal aliens to leave and not ever return would not be a “viable solution” in your mind.

Instead, you’d have us alter custom to accommodate these people.

kdaddy on January 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Sorry E, I was over in the debate thread. I was actually hoping MiM would take another shot at it. I was trying to suggest that proverb – keep a clear eye when you shoot! ie remove personal opinion.

If you ask a supporter why they support him, none will say he is naive or ignorant. That is, in fact, what Hillary will say. So temporarily disregarding the voters that will switch because of a HC attack ad, what motivates his base?

I think its a series of things that are encompassed by the word ‘change’. He did something that politicians talk about but rarely do…he pulled the youth out to vote. That means he sold the idea that they matter. What drives the youth? Idealism.

I’m breaking here. I’ll come back, the dems are up now.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:03 PM

My point was that his supporters claim he is this great guy running on integrity and all, yet he is just as slimy as all the other politicians and will go back on his promises like all the rest if it suits his desire for power.

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Right. That is a predetermined judgment on your part. Compare that to Fred. What if Fred said when he left the Senate he was done with political office? Would you stop supporting him because he is “slimy”. Careful with your answer:) it might be a trap!

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:06 PM

So what is it Spirit?

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Whew. Obama and Edwards just went back to back on this. Hillary misunderstands the voters, she always says ‘the Bush administration’. Change means her too. Voters are tired of BDS and CDS. That is why Obama/Edwards/Clinton in Iowa.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:36 PM

What if Fred said when he left the Senate he was done with political office?

I’ll take your premise…

I don’t see how it is comparable to what Barack Obama is doing.

Barack Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, I believe. He was elected to be a Senator. He assured people that he would serve as a Senator to his State and build up some experience, not abandon his Senate duties to then go on a Presidential campaign.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has a career and experience as a politician and counsel in politics and then decided to retire. By getting back into politics, he is not going back on any promises to serve the people of Tennessee to pursue the Presidency. He could easily say that he saw the absence of conservatives in the GOP race and felt that he needed to give America the option of voting for a Conservative.

What could Barack Obama say to explain away his change of heart? ‘Yes, I know I still don’t have any experience, and I haven’t even fulfilled a full term expected of me in the Senate on behalf of the people of the State of Illinois, but I think the time is right for someone with no experience to run for President.’

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Commercial break!

Michael in MI – Fred has the weakest executive experience in the R side. It’s a poor card to play pro-Fred anti-Obama.

What I was getting at is this: Fred was called into service by the grassroots if you buy that. Obama was called into service the same way. It is undeniable that there is a clamour for him, his 1st quarter fundraising was record-breaking. That wasn’t because he has a Clinton or Bush like network already existing on the ground.

My point is that the fact he changed his mind is irrelevant unless you use it to prop up a preconception. He decided to run because he can win and lots of people like him. Not that much different then Fred, except one raised a lot more money than the other.

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Pull up the biographies of all previous presidents and find me one who had a parent from anyplace outside Western Civilization.

It’s not in the Constitution that the president has to have ancestry in Western civilization. Should we start having blood test to make sure that everyone elected has no once of blood from outside Western Europe?

All the gibberish people believe about this “nation of immigrants” junk

It’s not gibberish, it’s the truth. Not too many Americans citizen can say their ancestors have lived here for centuries.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3