Audio: Comprehensive immigration reform “will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” says McCain

posted at 4:53 pm on June 28, 2008 by Allahpundit

Top priority overall or just top domestic priority? Iraq and the economy can wait, I guess. The clip comes, via reader Edgar M, from today’s appearance before NALEO, in which he and Obama took turns to see who could pander most cravenly on immigration. Truth be told, there’s little new here: Lip service is duly paid to securing the border despite the questioner’s emphasis on comprehensive reform “and not just enforcement,” and he recycles his old line about illegals being “God’s children too” as a way of insinuating, a la his crony’s notorious remarks about telling “the bigots” to shut up, that one really can’t oppose amnesty and be a minimally decent human being. Par for the course.

It’s nice to know, though, that the very first 100 days of a McCain administration will be consumed with an internecine fight on the right to stop his next round of crap legislation from passing. Can’t wait. If you’re curious to see what Obama said in reply, here’s a recap from Reuters. To the left, of course (minus Mickey Kaus), McCain’s problem is that he isn’t a big enough amnesty shill. Exit quotation from Obama, demonstrating a charming obliviousness to the fact that he himself flip-flopped on nearly every issue he commented on this past week: “If we are going to solve the challenges we face, we can’t vacillate, we can’t shift depending on our politics.”

Link: sevenload.com


Related Posts:

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 5 6 7 8

Are you aware of the evolution of the political party system in America?

Funny you should ask. Sitting next to me on my bookshelf is a tome called Transformations of the American Party System. It’s a poli-sci book. It goes into great detail about the history of the American political parties from the Civil War onwards. It should be required reading for people who think the GOP can buy Hispanic votes via amnesty. Short answer – they can’t.

Do you know why Jewish Americans vote blindly for the Democrats?

Do you know why Blacks vote blindly for the Democrats?

Indeed I do. And it’s not because it’s “reality”.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Did someone say my dog was worthless?

My dog and I are quite offended.

:)

bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

I don’t think it’s nice, people laughin’. You see, Blondie’s dog don’t like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea they’re laughin’ at him. Now if they apologize, like I know they’re going to, I might convince Blondie to convince him that they really didn’t mean it

Tuco on June 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Forget those two and just send Tuco Gold and Tuco will run for both positions.

Tuco on June 29, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Oddly enough, your offer is the most sensible strategy yet presented to me for the upcoming general election.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 9:39 PM

601, we’re having fun!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 9:40 PM

There is a reason they color in the states red and blue on election night and not a mix of the two.

I repeat, under my proposal, any state that gives all its EV’s to one party at present would continue to do so. There would be no division of them. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer. I don’t know what idea you have in your head, but it’s not mine. You’re tilting at windmills here.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:42 PM

So, like, if I called you a ‘tard and told you that you sucked, would that be dialogue? Or an insult?

Just curious. Seriously.

Seriously? That would be an insult. And not a very good one. Take some pride in your work, whatever it is.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM

On topic, do we want a European system?

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I have a system, very unlike both yours and the Europeans. Main difference is I don’t vote against the bastards at the next election, I put them on a stool, put a rope around their neck and then I shoot the legs off the stool. Adios.

Tuco on June 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM

as I said I was trying to catch up and was reading a little too fast and the original post turned into a conversation of overturning the Electoral College….

Nobody on this thread has suggested overturning the Electoral College.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Already discussed @ 8:25.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 9:47 PM

Seriously? That would be an insult. And not a very good one. Take some pride in your work, whatever it is.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM

No, not seriously. I am very poor at insults, and a halfwit to boot.

I just wondered, though… after reviewing the previous hundred or so comments, I thought perhaps dialogue can only be achieved through insult. But I am quite inept at this sort of thing. Please forgive. It’s a good thing Tuco is here, or I’d be lost.

A chicken in every pot, and that sort of thing. Y’know?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Is there a special Hot Air prize?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

First prize is a night with Hillary.

Second prize is 2 nights with Hilliary.

Third price is 3 nights with Hillary.

Murphy9 on June 29, 2008 at 9:50 PM

I have a system, very unlike both yours and the Europeans. Main difference is I don’t vote against the bastards at the next election, I put them on a stool, put a rope around their neck and then I shoot the legs off the stool. Adios.

Tuco on June 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM

I can certainly see the merits of this system, but do have one question that puzzles me:

1) Where do I sign up?

Best regards,
wccawa aka The Retarded Wolverine

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 9:51 PM

8:25

You are exactly right, they would. If Barr doesn’t take the majority vote, however, to garner the electors, then the second choice of the Barr voters would be the important part right? Even if you had a 51-49 election, the electors would go to McCain.

Unless, you have a state that divides it’s electors by proportion. Which is to say it chooses it’s state representation to be a piece of the national popular vote. In this case it would be conceivable (likely even) that a third party candidate would get electors. Their effect would be insignificant most likely, but if enough, it would drop the election into the House…so you are back at the same point.

So under this idea, the feasible way for a candidate to get a significant number of electors would be if all states chose to go the route of taking a piece of the national popular vote. That’s the head-first dive into the short end of the pool of direct democracy.

I don’t know what you mean by “already discussed”. You give your mistaken opinion at 8:25. I then told you that you were mistaken, and explained why.

There is no proportional allocation of EV’s under my suggestion. Unless a state wants to do so. A few states already do so, can’t think of the names off hand.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Instead of voting for one you vote for all four in order of preference, one through four. After the first prefence votes are counted you might see a result like this.

Republican, 33%. Conservative, 20%. Democratic, 30%. Liberal, 17%.

Unlike at present, the Republican does not win, since he failed to get over 50%. The Liberal candidate is eliminated and his votes distributed among the other candidates, based on the “second preference” marked on his ballots. After this the result might be;

Republican, 36%. Conservative, 22%. Democratic, 42%.

Since nobody has yet reached 50% the Conservative candidate is eliminated and his votes distributed as above, at which point sombody will have a majority.

This allows people to vote for a candidate instead of against one, which is the normal experience for American voters. It allows people to express their dissatisfaction with the duopoly. And it allows for the existence of third and fourth parties which have a realistic shot at winning.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Nobody on this thread has suggested overturning the Electoral College.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM

What the fu…………..?

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM

I am very poor at insults, and a halfwit to boot.

I’ll have to take your word for it.

after reviewing the previous hundred or so comments, I thought perhaps dialogue can only be achieved through insult.

Yes, but keep in mind that you are a self-admitted halfwit. You might be mistaken.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:56 PM

What the fu…………..?

Thanks for that thoughtful question. Can you explain what part of what you read made you think of the Electoral College at all? Or what part of it made you think it was being overturned?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM

There is no proportional allocation of EV’s under my suggestion. Unless a state wants to do so. A few states already do so, can’t think of the names off hand.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Of what you quoted: 1st paragraph is non-prop allocation. 2nd is for states that do. Neither empowers a 3rd party to have a significant impact. So the 3rd paragraph is about the necessary adaption to get from point A to point B.

If you can’t follow that, well, those are the breaks.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Yes, but keep in mind that you are a self-admitted halfwit. You might be mistaken.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:56 PM

No, no… I really am quite terrible at this. Ask anyone here… I am abused very frequently, and rightfully so. I deserve the halfwit label

But I am gaining a better sense of things after reading this thread. Thank you for your assistance.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 9:59 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Seven Percent, I know who you are. You are the man of thousand disguises, whose name is Legion. Whan registration opened up here, you must have bagged a good twenty names.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

The fates are against you Watson. My dear fellow, you shall keep watch in the street. I’ll do the criminal part. It is my business to know what other people don’t know.

Holmes on June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Now see? That was a comment I can agree on!

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Of what you quoted: 1st paragraph is non-prop allocation.

Of what I quoted? But what I quoted was your idea, not mine. Do you really expect me to defend you odd interpetation of what I say, instead of my own ideas?

Nothing I said can be described as “non-prop allocation”.

If you can’t follow that, well, those are the breaks.

I follow that you don’t understand what I described to you.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Holmes on June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Limerick is another word for Moriarty. I’ll get you both!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Of what I quoted? But what I quoted was your idea, not mine.

Yep, I was explaining it to you. I used the phrase of what you quoted to distinguish just in case at my 8:25 a paragraph before what you quoted, which would have made my numbering off. Was just a courtesy on my part, didn’t mean to confuse you, which appears to be unfortunately easy.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Now see? That was a comment I can agree on!

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM

…….. my bad, my 5 1/2 son just instructed me to get the hell off the computer and throw the food on the BBQ.

Advice, I will surely follow……… I will check in with you all after some finely cooked food and grog!


Holmes on June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM

The game is afoot………

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM

dropped 2 words. “just in case at my 8:25 there was a paragraph…

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM

So the 3rd paragraph is about the necessary adaption to get from point A to point B.

Well, that’s an interesting idea, to be sure. Your words again;

the feasible way for a candidate to get a significant number of electors would be if all states chose to go the route of taking a piece of the national popular vote.

But it has no relationship whatsoever to anything I suggested. If you can find any mention in my words of “national”, “popular vote”, or “electors”, I’d be obliged.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Advice, I will surely follow……… I will check in with you all after some finely cooked food and grog!

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM

SECOND LOOK AT GROG! AND FINELY COOKED FOOD!

Post of the day. I kid you not.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Limerick is another word for Moriarty. I’ll get you both!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:06 PM

The game is afoot………

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM

I have no desire to make mysteries, but it is impossible at this moment of action to enter into long and complex ruminations.

Holmes on June 29, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Anyone seen sulla around? We could use a Senatus Consultum Ultimum to bring us all back in line.

Wonder if he got deployed? Been awhile since he popped in with his lictors.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:13 PM

But it has no relationship whatsoever to anything I suggested. If you can find any mention in my words of “national”, “popular vote”, or “electors”, I’d be obliged.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Well the relationship to what you suggested is that what you suggested fails at an earlier step – the first paragraph. So the 2nd and 3rd paragraph are the natural consequences.

And yes, of course it’s my words. As such, I’m not going to walk through a conversation I already had with another poster piece by piece for you when you can just read it yourself. It’s pretty straightforward.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Yep, I was explaining it to you.

You were explaining my idea to me?

Don’t you think that’s a little ass backwards? Don’t you think that if you have some questions about another persons ideas, you might, I don’t know, ask them to explain it to you?

Because you’ve wandered way off track. I keep telling you that your idea has zero relationship to what I proposed, and you seem unable to accept that simple fact. Instead you keep repeating your misconception. And you do it so badly that I can’t even figure out where you want wrong to set you straight.

There is no “proportional allocation” of anything. I’ve explained that to you countless times. If NY gives 100 EV’s to the winner now, it still does that under my proposal.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:17 PM

You were explaining my idea to me?

Nope. Was explaining my 8:25.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Well the relationship to what you suggested is that what you suggested fails at an earlier step – the first paragraph.

Are you toking up as you write here? Because you’re getting increasingly incoherent.

Before you fall asleep or pass out, try to explain what you mean.

“the relationship to what you suggested is that what you suggested fails at an earlier step”

Geez.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:20 PM

Are you aware of the evolution of the political party system in America?
Funny you should ask. Sitting next to me on my bookshelf is a tome called Transformations of the American Party System. It’s a poli-sci book. It goes into great detail about the history of the American political parties from the Civil War onwards. It should be required reading for people who think the GOP can buy Hispanic votes via amnesty. Short answer – they can’t.

Do you know why Jewish Americans vote blindly for the Democrats?

Do you know why Blacks vote blindly for the Democrats?
Indeed I do. And it’s not because it’s “reality”.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Thanks but you didn’t answer my second question:

Also..

ARE YOU AN AMERICAN?

I ask this because I noticed a while back that you spelled a few words with the English spelling, or Canadian version, rather than the American spelling we use here.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 9:15 PM

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Nope. Was explaining my 8:25

Your 8:25 was wrong. It was also written in the garbled syntax you seem to favor. But it was wrong.

Unless, you have a state that divides it’s electors by proportion. Which is to say it chooses it’s state representation to be a piece of the national popular vote.

The only person here who is suggesting dividing electors by proportion, or choosing state representation to be a piece of the national popular vote, is you. Not me. You. I’m expressly repudiating those ideas.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:25 PM

I mean that if the 3rd party doesn’t get a majority in a state, then they will get no electors. Hence no change. It is unlikely that a 3rd party would get a majority even with a multi-vote ticket because the votes where the 3rd party is the top vote, the 2nd place vote on by those voters will carry on of the two major parties.

Since you asked-
…”the relationship to what you suggested (restating your 1st sentence at 10.10) is that what you suggested (your idea) fails at an earlier step (which is my first paragraph @ 8:25). ie the connecting theme is that since the idea fails for it to have application additional steps have to be added.

—–

Here’s the thing. The idea doesn’t work, so complaining I took it past it’s early failings is kind of pointless.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:28 PM

I will never vote for this guy.
I have never voted for anyone but a Republican, but this guy isn’t worth my vote.
Damn! I wish I had a choice!

woodswalking1 on June 29, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Thanks but you didn’t answer my second question:

I’m in a generous mood so even though personal questions are off topic, I’ll tell you that I am an American. Born in New Yawk. As I explained to E, I grew up in the British Isles. Army brat.

Anything else?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

carry on one of the two major parties.

Ie. NO ELECTORS FOR 3rd PARTY.

By hey, great idea. Cheers!

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Well, that explains why you’re such an asshole.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Army brat.

Anything else?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Army brat in Britain? How old are you anyway? Or did you mean Air Force or Navy?

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:35 PM

All of you people do realise that NONE of this is helping Michells’s children.

Or is it?

catmman on June 29, 2008 at 10:36 PM

All of you people do realise that NONE of this is helping Michells’s children.

Or is it?

catmman on June 29, 2008 at 10:36 PM

This is a most excellent question. But I really, REALLY question the timing.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:37 PM

I mean that if the 3rd party doesn’t get a majority in a state, then they will get no electors

Yes. But earlier you thought that they would get electors, right? You kept going on about proportional allocation, no matter how many times I said otherwise.

Hence no change.

Speculation. From what I can see, the entire damm country hates the GOP and the Democrats and would jump at a chance to do something like this.

If not, what’s wrong with giving people a choice? Isn’t that the American thing to do?

It is unlikely that a 3rd party would get a majority even with a multi-vote ticket because the votes where the 3rd party is the top vote, the 2nd place vote on by those voters will carry on of the two major parties.

That is possible. There is no predetermined outcome here. Just greater freedom. What’s your objection to that?

Since you asked-

I asked you to explain what you are thinking, not give me one of your reference diagrams to your own mistaken comments from earlier. Or is that task beyond you?

The idea doesn’t work, so complaining I took it past it’s early failings is kind of pointless.

Right. And what exactly were those “early failings” again? You semed to think earlier that the problem was “proportional allocation”, but you seem to have finally figured that one out. So which “failing” are you thinking of now?

And don’t say “see para one”. here is para one.

You are exactly right, they would. If Barr doesn’t take the majority vote, however, to garner the electors, then the second choice of the Barr voters would be the important part right? Even if you had a 51-49 election, the electors would go to McCain.

Hmm, no “failings” there. The person getting the majority vote wins.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:40 PM

I grew up in the British Isles. Army brat.

Anything else?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

How’re your teeth?

misterpeasea on June 29, 2008 at 10:42 PM

I grew up in the British Isles. Army brat.

Anything else?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Are chancres as common as is reported?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:44 PM

carry on one of the two major parties.

Ie. NO ELECTORS FOR 3rd PARTY.

By hey, great idea. Cheers!

Of course the third party would not get any electors. Neither would the second party. Only the party that wins a state gets electors.

Ten minutes ago, you were crying that “proportonal allocation” was a major falw here. Now, having finally gotten with the program, you’ve done a 180 are are crying that there is no “proportonal allocation”.

Hey, if you really WANT “proportonal allocation”, we can put it in there. Just make up your mind.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM

I’m in a generous mood so even though personal questions are off topic, I’ll tell you that I am an American. Born in New Yawk. As I explained to E, I grew up in the British Isles. Army brat.

Anything else?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Nope that explains your feelings of superiority over the rest of us poor American slobs.

I knew there was something there. And your English spelling of American words was the tip off.

So .. anchor baby huh?

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Are chancres as common as is reported?

No. Chilblains are though.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:46 PM

flenser,

American Army Brat? Inquiring minds want to know.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:47 PM

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

LOL

bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:46 PM

You racist, racist bastard!

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Yes. But earlier you thought that they would get electors, right?

No. Hence: Even if you had a 51-49 election, the electors would go to McCain. (no electors to 3rd party).

Yeah, I did talk about p. allocation with JxD because the way the conv went.

Right. And what exactly were those “early failings” again? You semed to think earlier that the problem was “proportional allocation”, but you seem to have finally figured that one out. So which “failing” are you thinking of now?

No, you misunderstand. Proportional allocation is the only way to get a 3rd party any significant electors (no, this isn’t your words, these are mine). I mentioned it because, as you said, some states use it already. And the “failing” is that without it, 3rd party gets little to no electors. Which is to say the idea doesn’t have an effect, which I assumed what your desired outcome.

Hmm, no “failings” there. The person getting the majority vote wins.

McCain gets the states electors. Exactly.

Speculation. From what I can see, the entire damm country hates the GOP and the Democrats and would jump at a chance to do something like this.

Were that true, a strong 3rd party would already exist. If you really think people who jump at this, propose up the political ladder and they can explain it to you.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Nope that explains your feelings of superiority over the rest of us poor American slobs.

Just you, hon. Just you.

And your English spelling of American words was the tip off.

Yowzah! This ones sharp!

So .. anchor baby huh?

In a manner of speaking. I lived abroad long enough to become eligible for EU citizenship. I can add that to my American one. Just call me Jason Bourne.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Just call me Jason Bourne.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM

May I have your autograph, Mr. Bourne? Just here, on my cast…

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Of course the third party would not get any electors. Neither would the second party. Only the party that wins a state gets electors.

Ten minutes ago, you were crying that “proportonal allocation” was a major falw here. Now, having finally gotten with the program, you’ve done a 180 are are crying that there is no “proportonal allocation”.

Hey, if you really WANT “proportonal allocation”, we can put it in there. Just make up your mind.

That’s funny. You should do spin for candidates.

3rd party means party that is not Republican or Democrat. But I suspect you knew that already since that’s how it’s always used.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM

3rd party means party that is not Republican or Democrat. But I suspect you knew that already since that’s how it’s always used.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Shhhh…. it’s a lightworker!

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:53 PM

So .. anchor baby huh?
In a manner of speaking. I lived abroad long enough to become eligible for EU citizenship. I can add that to my American one. Just call me Jason Bourne.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Hahaha!

And you think you know better how to run our country.

You don’t even have any investment in being an American. It’s just a dual citizenship with your European one.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 10:55 PM

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 10:53 PM

haha

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 10:55 PM

U.S. Army deployments to USAEUR are 36 months. Some are extended to 48. Multiple tours are possible in a career but not back to back as a general rule. Normal rotation (pre war) was States-Europe-States-Korea-States or Europe/Korea switched.

So I ask again, flenser, U.S. Army brat or British Army brat?

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Yes. But earlier you thought that they would get electors, right?

No.

If you say so. Maybe you can explain why you’ve filled this thread with talk about “proportional allocation” then. Remember that bit earlier about states being red or blue, not both? But if you’re dropped it for good, fine. We’ll just pretend it never happened.

Proportional allocation is the only way to get a 3rd party any significant electors (no, this isn’t your words, these are mine).

That’s your assumption, not a fact. How do you know that Geroriga would not go for Barr, for instance?

McCain gets the states electors. Exactly.

You’re way too hung up on McCain. I did not propose this as some scheme to block MCcain. There is no possible way it could be in place by November anyway. Forget McCain.

the “failing” is that without it [PR}, 3rd party gets little to no electors.

Again, you are speculating. You have no idea what would happen if what I suggest were in place for the 2010 or 2012 elections. Maybe the Reps and Dems do exactly the same as normal. Maybe both get wiped out. Maybe somewhere in between.

The reason people don’t vote for third parties is because of the ‘first past the post’ system. They have to gamble on what the different parties will do, and the behavior thet is rewarded is voting against the other party, not voting for yours.

If there was a Conservative Party on the ticket with DeMint at the head, and there was no penalty for voting for it as there is at present, do you really thing that it would not get a sizable number of people and carry many states? Maybe even a majority?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:02 PM

People, these are not the times for divisiveness. These are the times when we must all come together. Our future depends on us bringing hope to each other, and to those who follow!

(wild applause)

Don’t allow these trifling things to be the wedge that drives us apart. These are not the issues that should divide, but should unite! Let us ALL BE ONE! Together, let us CHANGE the future! Let us all be the beacons of HOPE that only we can light! Walk with me! Be a part of the future and let us NEVER GIVE UP THE HOPE! We are called to unite and CHANGE the world for the better!

(bleachers collapse)

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Sorry, “Lim”. I answer personal questions, as opposed to questions on political topics under debate, only when I feel like it and to select people.

But hey, I like it that you’re getting into the swing of asking questions. Now, there are several questions re immigration you have outstanding ….

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Just wondering because the U.S. Army left Great Britian in 1952.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 11:07 PM

You don’t even have any investment in being an American.

Funny, my DD 214 says otherwise. Some of my time in Europe was courtesy of Uncle Sam.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:09 PM

You’re way too hung up on McCain.

Just trying to use names, since terms like 3rd party seemed to throw you:)

If there was a Conservative Party on the ticket with DeMint at the head, and there was no penalty for voting for it as there is at present, do you really thing that it would not get a sizable number of people and carry many states?

There is no penalty for voting for a conservative in a primary now. So no, there’s no reason to expect altered voting patterns.

That’s your assumption, not a fact. How do you know that Geroriga would not go for Barr, for instance?

Georgia might write in Hillary Clinton too, but it’s unlikely.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Well, you keep wondering. But spare some brain cycles for thinking about those questions I asked you. The ones on political topics.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Ok. Didn’t realize that you were old enough to aquire EU citizenship status as a U.S. Army brat for your massive time in residence in the British Isles prior to 1952. Carry on.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 11:14 PM

There is no penalty for voting for a conservative in a primary now. So no, there’s no reason to expect altered voting patterns.

You must be joking? I knoe very few people who voted for their first choice candidate in the GOP primaries. It was all “Well, I want to support Hunter, but I have to block Rudy, so I’ll vote for Huck”. Or vote for Romney to block Mccain, or vote for Fred to block Romney, etc.

I guess somebody got to vote for their first choice candidate, but I’ve met damm few of them.

Georgia might write in Hillary Clinton too, but it’s unlikely.

You really think that in the scenario I just decribed, Georgia would go for McCain over Barr? I think you’re blowing smoke.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:16 PM

LOL..

The artful dodger.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 10:56 PM

My father’s assignments fit your ‘States-Europe-States-Korea-States or Europe/Korea switched’ pattern but I know a US Army family that was stationed in England 36 months and was next assigned to France (3 yrs also). This was in the 50′s. It could indeed be US Army – it depends on what’s going on in the world I guess.

Texaa Gal – if his dad was US Army and he was born in NY then there’s no ‘anchor baby’ to it; and lots of US military brats have dual citizenship, doesn’t make them any less American. Note that he said he was in Europe long enough to qualify for THEIR citizenship – so he was already one of us.

sloopy on June 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Didn’t realize that you were old enough to aquire EU citizenship status as a U.S. Army brat for your massive time in residence in the British Isles prior to 1952.

That would be a good trick, given that the EU did not exist at the time.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Note that he said he was in Europe long enough to qualify for THEIR citizenship – so he was already one of us.

sloopy on June 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM

I’m pretty sure we could settle this with a stamped, certified birth certificate.

WHAT SAY YOU???

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM

I knoe very few people who voted for their first choice candidate in the GOP primaries.

Pity.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM

sloopy on June 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Point taken sloopy.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Pity.

Spirit of 1776

Let me ask you, do you think McCain would have been nominated under the system I described? Don’t tell me, I know that you’ll say no just to be ornery. But think about it.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:23 PM

Yes, yes Sloopy… he’s got an American citizenship with an English vocabulary but he’s not said his parents were American, only that he was born in NY. He’s artfully dodged the question.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 11:23 PM

I’m pretty sure we could settle this with a stamped, certified birth certificate.

Will a JPEG do? Just ignore the Photoshop marks.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Let me ask you, do you think McCain would have been nominated under the system I described? Don’t tell me, I know that you’ll say no just to be ornery. But think about it.

McCain or Rudy, yes. Barring some Fred-twin who campaigned hard, that is.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:25 PM

I’m pretty sure we could settle this with a stamped, certified birth certificate.

Will a JPEG do? Just ignore the Photoshop marks.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:24 PM

That will be fine. No worries. What’s to question?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:25 PM

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM

I’ll think I’ll just take him at his word.

sloopy on June 29, 2008 at 11:26 PM

He’s artfully dodged the question.

You people crack me up! Trying to get a straight answer out of you on the political topics being discussed here is like pulling teeth. But you think I’m an artful dodger if I don’t give you my life story including SSN!

Well, it’s been fun. Let’s do it again real soon.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:27 PM

McCain or Rudy, yes. Barring some Fred-twin who campaigned hard, that is.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Sigh. If only there WAS a Bizarro Fred somewhere in the universe, we would not be faced with the horror of this general election.

Damn you, fate! DAMN YOU!

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:28 PM

Well this U.S. Army Vet, son of a Vet, grandson of a Vet, father of a Vet, and soon to be grandfather of a Vet, bids you all a good night. (That’s just my claim to shooting off my mouth).

McCain 08! (*or the next best thing if you can get him on the ballot).

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Night. Balloon is almost deflated btw.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:32 PM

They just need to close the primaries. I can’t understand why any party would want an open primary. Maybe someday someone wonderful will come along and lead us to a third party, but he or she will have to be something special. The choices we have had so far for a third party haven’t exactly inspired.

Rose on June 29, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Thanks for the foxhole earlier. I never got to pay for that beer.

Later.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 11:34 PM

Wow. We got vets everywhere here!

Do Air Force guys count?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Do Air Force guys count?

Byran said so.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM

Byran said so.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM

Byran?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Is the thread going for 1000?

Surely some of you can attack flenser on plenty – but for being an American? or fot not being American enough?

Tuco, sending gold and guns your way.

wccawa, how can you forget Bryan so quickly?

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM

You people crack me up! Trying to get a straight answer out of you on the political topics being discussed here is like pulling teeth. But you think I’m an artful dodger if I don’t give you my life story including SSN!

Well, it’s been fun. Let’s do it again real soon.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:27 PM

LOL… Guess that answers my question.

BTW..

Several have responded to you but you have discounted their opinions by either calling them names or dismissing them as irrelevant because they don’t agree with you.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 11:52 PM

wccawa, how can you forget Bryan so quickly?

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Ohhhh…. Bryan. Not forgotten, at all. But the reference was to Byran. And I am unfamiliar with the reference to us Air Force guys.

No love for the Air Force? What will this do to my children? Doesn’t anyone care for the children?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Byran?

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Bryan.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Several have responded to you but you have discounted their opinions by either calling them names or dismissing them as irrelevant because they don’t agree with you.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Shhh…. don’t mess with the Lightworker. They have powers, I’m told.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Surely some of you can attack flenser on plenty – but for being an American? or fot not being American enough?

I think that’s only fair since he did alot of attacking of others here who tried to engage him on the issues. Not many seemed to be offended by his namecalling of them and me.

Sue me.. in an EU court..

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 PM

your English spelling of American words

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Now, come on! Fair does! English spelling of English words, if you don’t mind :)

OldEnglish on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Bryan.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Who could possibly forget Bryan?

But I missed the Air Force reference. Us zoomies have feeling to do, dontcha know?

Sniff.

wccawa on June 30, 2008 at 12:03 AM

wccawa on June 30, 2008 at 12:03 AM

I actually thought that was the video where he talked about being in Okinawa and stuff. Sorry, it was the wrong link.

Spirit of 1776 on June 30, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8