Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on April 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

It’s not the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship that has immigration reform proponents worried — at this point, it’s clear that this will be part of any deal Senate negotiators produce.

It’s how difficult they choose to make it…

“The sleeper issue in immigration reform is, do all 11 million people qualify for legal status or is it a fraction?” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, a pro-reform group. “This issue is the potential deal-breaker in the whole mix. If the requirements are so onerous that only a fraction of eligible people can actually adjust their status and get legal, there will be a hugely negative reaction to the bill in the immigrant community.”…

“My instinct is they want to be inclusive in who is eligible,” said Angela Kelley, a leading immigration expert with the Center for American Progress. “They recognize you want to try to have a program that permits as many people as possible to come forward. … I think it will be an accessible road but a long road.”

***

Finally, after the border is secure and our guest worker and visa programs are modernized, the legislation must address what to do with the people who are here illegally. I know some citizens want to round them all up, but this is not realistic. Instead, we can create an appropriate program to normalize their status…

The legislation should not provide a special pathway to citizenship for the millions who have willfully violated our immigration laws. Those who entered the U.S. as children, through no fault of their own, will be allowed to have a pathway to citizenship. But those who entered illegally as adults will only be allowed to participate in the new and improved guest worker and visa programs.

I am not advocating a two-tiered immigration system or second-class status — those who can become citizens and those who can never become citizens. Anyone who wants to become a naturalized citizen of the United States is welcome to apply. But Congress must not make it any easier for those who entered our country illegally to obtain citizenship. Those who qualify for the new guest worker and visa programs and desire citizenship would be placed at the end of the line behind others immigrating legally. It would be a travesty to treat those who violated our laws better than those who have patiently waited their turn to come to the United States the right way.

***

Rubio is building in several insurance policies:

1) Behind the scenes, Rubio has been courting conservative leaders and talk-radio hosts, hoping they’ll give him leeway when he needs it. One of his arguments: There’s nothing conservative about having 11 million people in the country illegally. So far, he has been encouraged by what he has heard. In late January, when the Senate gang issued the framework that it is now filling in, Rubio did a tour of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative talkers, and got a surprisingly respectful — even favorable — response…

2) The proposal’s pathway to citizenship will be triggered by a rigorous set of metrics that, according to sources, will take years for the U.S. to meet. Workplace-enforcement mechanisms would discourage employers from hiring illegals. And Rubio has been pushing for a 10-year wait for people who are here illegally now to apply for a green card. Even with these guardrails, Rubio doesn’t know how conservatives will react when groups start running ads saying Republicans are creating 10 million new Democratic voters, all of whom broke the law.

3) Rubio advisers studied conservative objections to past immigration packages and found that a frequent complaint was that the measures had been too rushed. So Rubio has very publicly insisted on multiple hearings, and a wide-open debate and amendment process in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. “In order to succeed, this process cannot be rushed or done in secret,” he said in Sunday’s statement. He wants buy-in from other Republican senators, and a big number on final passage, not a close vote.

***

It would seem that Rubio and the Democrats are playing chicken, each one calculating the other will flinch first. Democrats think the GOP is so desperate for an amnesty they’ll agree to anything. For his part, Rubio is trying to secure his status of godfather of an immigration “compromise” by threatening delay, knowing the Democrats (and Lindsey Graham) are desperate to ram the amnesty through before the public gets a good look at it and before the midterm elections get too close…

I think, in the end, that Rubio’s desire to shepherd an amnesty through Congress will cause him to cave to the Democrats’ demands. The Dems will give Rubio a few trivial concessions, so he can try to tell Limbaugh, Levin, et al. that he didn’t lie to them. But if I’m wrong, and he walks away saying he did his best but couldn’t overcome the Democrats’ for amnesty without enforcement, Rubio could strengthen his 2016 prospects.

***

“The Senate is littered with Republicans who negotiated with Chuck Schumer, thinking they had one deal when he had something else entirely in mind,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based GOP consultant. “I think [Rubio is] very mindful of the two potential negative outcomes (something perceived as a blanket/easy amnesty or a deal perceived as not moving the ball in a meaningful way) but still views this as a right policy/right politics matter.”…

[I]f the perception is that Rubio either a) got rolled or b) rolled over when it comes to a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, which Democrats insist must be in any comprehensive plan, it could mean real trouble for him with the conservative base of the GOP.

In the end, Rubio has to be able to say to conservatives something along these lines: “I fought with Democrats. I told them what we needed to allow undocumented workers a path to citizenship. They didn’t want it but I held firm and we got it done.”

***

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) union president Chris Crane’s request to meet with the bipartisan group of eight senators developing a comprehensive immigration reform bill was denied.

“Since the Gang of 8 has not met with anybody else, they did not agree to meet with the ICE union president,” Juan Pachado, a spokesman for Sen. Bob Menendez,D-N.J., told The Washington Examiner in an email.

ICE union president Chris Crane requested the meeting last week. “Any comprehensive immigration bill would have enormous consequences for our officers and for the citizens we protect,” Crane, who has testified before congressional panels on the issue, wrote in the letter. “Fundamentally, I would implore you to consider this issue from the perspective of our officers who risk their lives every day in a constant uphill climb to uphold the laws of the land.”

***

The bottom line: Most Americans would support an immigration reform plan, but only if border security comes first. And by “first” they mean before the legalization of currently illegal immigrants and before the creation of a path to citizenship. Would they be more flexible if they truly believed the federal government’s promise to secure the border? Perhaps — but they don’t believe.

And why should they? Previous pledges to secure the border have ended in half-hearted enforcement. Yes, there is more border security today than there was a decade ago. But there has always been, it seems, a resistance in the federal bureaucracy to relatively simple actions, like finishing a sufficiently secure border fence, that would contribute greatly to enhanced enforcement…

So it is in that atmosphere that the Gang of Eight prepares to unveil its comprehensive reform plan. The biggest obstacle won’t be a guest worker program or some other detail. It will be the public’s lack of trust.

***

“It’s long overdue,” Graham said on Fox News. “If we don’t do it now, it will be a decade or more before anyone takes it up again.”


***



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 2 3 4 5

On Afghanistan – it is not hawk’s fault that his two CiCs didn’t want to win. If so, they should have never sent the hawks there.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2013 at 2:07 AM

You are right there, for us it was about making sure our kids where as best prepared and led as we could and bring as many home as we could, nothing more and nothing less.

MarshFox on April 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM

That is one of the cheapest shots I’ve seen anyone take here. You nothing if you’re not class.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:03 AM

Are you now claiming to be part of the victim class?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

The concept of the nation-state isn’t something to be perverted and destroyed just to “appeal” for some votes, which is almost laughable in the larger context.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 3, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Agreed. Have a strong leader argue for the R/C principles. Romney was pathetic at it.

No one free and thinking person should want to be in bondage. The problem is with the “thinking”. The majority of the land is utterly dumb. Amnesty won’t make ‘em any smarter.

Most befuddling is why the Asians leave ratholes behind and then vote for Obama.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2013 at 2:13 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

SSM and Amnesty won’t do it.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2013 at 2:13 AM

I think I agree with RWM if my brain understands what she says. Sometimes my brain drifts off to fantasy land while I’m reading a post more than 5 sentences.

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM
SSM and Amnesty won’t do it.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2013 at 2:13 AM

I absolutely agree.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:17 AM

The GOPe (Rove, Jeb, etc) is saying that all we need to do is pass amnesty and Voila!, Republicans will have Hispanics in the bag!

Really? If that were true, then they should take a good look at history:

In 1980, Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 37% — a difference of 19%.

In 1984, Mondale received 66% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 34.82% — a difference of 31.18%.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 a/k/a Simpson-Mazzilo into law, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which were Hispanic.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis won 70.15% of the Hispanic vote while the Vice-President of the man who legalised millions of Hispanics, George H W Bush, received a mere 30.85% — a difference of 39.3%.

If Hispanics could be purchased with amnesty, then they would have overwhelmingly voted Republican in 1988. They didn’t so that should tell the “brains” in the GOP something.

Continuing on…

In 1992, Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote while President George H.W. Bush won 25% – a difference of 36%.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton won 72% of the Hispanic vote while Senator Bob Dole received a mere 21% – a difference of 51%.

In 2000, Vice-President Al Gore won 62% of the Hispanic vote while George W Bush won only 35% – a difference of 27%.

In 2004, Senator John Kerry won 58% of the Hispanic vote while President George W Bush won 40% – a difference of 18%.

In 2008, Senator Barack Obama, who voted AGAINST President Bush’s immigration reform, won 67% of the Hispanic vote while Senator John McAmnesty won a mere 31% – a difference of 36%.

In 2012, President Barack Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote while Mitt Romney won only 27% – a difference of 44%.

Adios, Adios, Miss American Pie? Not Necessarily.

M2RB: Don McLean

An expanded guest worker and visa programme? Yes.

A short “pathway to citizenship” for anyone here illegally? Hell no.

Allowing illegals to apply for visas AND pay taxes, including payroll taxes, laws of which can be further strengthened, would take people out of the shadows and allow us to know who is here, but no one that broke the law to come into this country should be fast-tracked to citizenship nor should they be eligible for welfare benefits.

At the same time, we must enforce and strengthen laws pertaining to employers that knowingly hire illegals. First offence: $100,000 per illegal in fines. Second offence: $1,000,000 fine plus 5 years in prison. NO CIVIL PENALTIES AND SETTLEMENTS FOR SECOND OFFENCES. SOMEONE OR SOME PEOPLE GO TO PRISON AT THE COMPANY.

We focus on illegals, but we must also focus on those that hire them whether they are the Big Poultry companies or the upper-middle class or rich family in the McMansion that hires illegal nannies and housekeepers.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Not by fundamentally transforming America toward the third world. If I liked the third world so much, I’d have already moved there rather than waiting and hoping for it to come to me.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

By demonstrating to the entire, available base that what we want to do is the right thing to do. Those that agree vote for us.

“Reach more people.”

Not by changing what we want to do such that it is in agreement with more voters.

“Pandering.”

Note to self: Stop “quick check” habit for HA.

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:20 AM

Hey.

Rusty Allen on April 3, 2013 at 2:20 AM

I love you all.

Rusty Allen on April 3, 2013 at 2:21 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM
Not by fundamentally transforming America toward the third world. If I liked the third world so much, I’d have already moved there rather than waiting and hoping for it to come to me.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Your less than adult cheap shot aside, I completely agree. I see what you’re saying now and think it would be bad to fundamentally change America just to garner a few votes that wouldn’t make even a small difference anyway.

Well said.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:17 AM

I will disagree with you slightly with regards to the deporting of 11+ million illegals. I believe that if we actually aggressively enforced our immigration laws, threw in prison anyone who declared their state county or city a sanctuary and ran Operation Wet-Back styled immigration sweeps like Eisenhower, the problem would be solved in 5 or 10 years.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM

Rusty loves me. He really loves me.

Axe. This doesn’t mean he is ghey does it.?

SWalker they will self deport.

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:26 AM

Your less than adult cheap shot aside, I completely agree. I see what you’re saying now and think it would be bad to fundamentally change America just to garner a few votes that wouldn’t make even a small difference anyway.

Well said.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM

Are there two of you? I like one of them much better than the other.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

If the laws w/b enforced, if hiring illegals would stop, they’d self-deport, wouldn’t come.

Commerce and the gov’t are criminals and destroyers of the land.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

Raul Labrador poses that same old tired false dichotomy:

Finally, after the border is secure and our guest worker and visa programs are modernized, the legislation must address what to do with the people who are here illegally. I know some citizens want to round them all up, but this is not realistic. Instead, we can create an appropriate program to normalize their status.

Has he not heard of attrition through enforcement, the most popular strategy?

Anyone who says “We can’t deport them all, THEREFORE we must make them legal residents is either lying or an uninformed idiot — take your pick. Just listen to this illegal alien leaving Georgia explain how it works.

Mr. Labrador — are you cosponsoring the SAVE Act?? If not, why not?? Let’s try a little law enforcement for a change, instead of rewarding the lawbreakers with their ill-gotten goods (residency)?

fred5678 on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

I will disagree with you slightly with regards to the deporting of 11+ million illegals. I believe that if we actually aggressively enforced our immigration laws, threw in prison anyone who declared their state county or city a sanctuary and ran Operation Wet-Back styled immigration sweeps like Eisenhower, the problem would be solved in 5 or 10 years.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM

It’s only unrealistic when you emend it: “It unrealistic to suggest we round up eleven million illegals Tuesday and deport them.”

This doesn’t have to happen over a holiday weekend. In fact, handling it the way she suggests would just about solve it. They didn’t come into the country in a day; we don’t have to fix this in a day.

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

No, we can’t and that isn’t what I was saying. If you go back to the thread and read it, you will see that someone – I believe that it was JannyMae – said that gays will vote in the same percentages as blacks. That was not supported by the vote in the 2010 election.

As you should know, my purpose for supporting SSM has NOTHING whatsoever to do with “broadening the base.” It has to do with my position on the government’s involvement in marriage, in general, and the fact that I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter into contracts determining how they will share their finances, own property, etc. It is a contractual and rights issue to me.

I do, however, suggest that it is not helpful to people when they call other people “mental or biological defects,” which is how you and I first got into a fight. My point had to do with some of the language being used on that thread. Calling everyone, especially gay conservatives, Dan Savage or Marxists – you didn’t, but others did – is ridiculous and a great way to lose an argument. Who do you think is a better spokesman for SSM? Rosie O’Donnell and Dan Savage or Ellen Degeneres? Who do you think is a better spokesman for traditional marriage? Dr Ben Carson or Fred Phelps?

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:02 AM
40 percent of Americans are Conservatives, that’s the broader base they need to be appealing to. 30 percent are independent’s who lean Conservative, 30 percent are Democrats. Barky O’Dogeater did not beat Mitt Romney, the media did. They did so by lying to the American people. And you are falling for one of those lies.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:10 AM

This is well said. I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s time we stopped letting people fool us with who they are and what their aims are.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM

In other words I concur with SW last post. Concur means I agree.

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM

Axe. This doesn’t mean he is ghey does it.?

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:26 AM

Men can love each other without climbing into a pup tent. So no, he might not be gay. Besides, I told you — Rusty is really a chick. You’ll all see one day.

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

This is well said. I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s time we stopped letting people fool us with who they are and what their aims are.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM

. . .

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:33 AM

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

I love you man. But I have to decline your pup tent offer. (:

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:33 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM
Are there two of you? I like one of them much better than the other.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

Well, make no mistake, I’m not fond of you. But the truth in your comment I referred to is undeniable. It makes no sense to try to fool ourselves into thinking that we’ll garner enough votes to make a bit of difference in an election with people who are by and large predisposed to vote in another manner. But the gop still panders. It’s not a consistent goal of who we’re trying to pander to though.

There are those here who would rid the party of every last SoCon over a much smaller demographic.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

America must die for its historical ‘sins’.

Isn’t that what they’re really saying?

They are killing the United States to absolve themselves of our historical ‘guilt’.

Thankfully, no other nation on Earth has any historical ‘sins’, so they are all welcome to flood in and annihilate the evil U.S. with the blessings of our Political and Business and Academic and Media Traitor Class.

profitsbeard on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

Can’t we all just agree we’re trying to appeal to a broader base?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

That last post of mine that you reposted was in response to astonerii. Perhaps, Schad will explain to you what my dealing with astonerii has been reduced to in the last several months where even an Albert Camus quote, which is self-evident, brings about a freakout on his part.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

Dire is not here.

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

There are those here who would rid the party of every last SoCon over a much smaller demographic.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

lol.

damn it.

back to work.

*poof*

*unpoof*

Er, hi, Resist. Hope everything’s brilliant. :)

*repoof*

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:36 AM

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

That argument was about one thing one thing and one thing only. A regular commenter here being intimidated solely because of his opinion. That has nothing to do with this thread though and I’m not sure what would make you bring it up.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:10 AM

This is well said. I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s time we stopped letting people fool us with who they are and what their aims are.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM

I’m going to let this whole topic go now. I don’t think you have changed your mind or that anyone has said anything to make you rethink your position, it looks like you just don’t want to discus it any more. I don’t hate you dude, I just believe that you have come to a wrong and foolish conclusion.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM

. It makes no sense to try to fool ourselves into thinking that we’ll garner enough votes to make a bit of difference in an election with people who are by and large predisposed to vote in another manner.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

Just a few tens of minutes ago you seemed most adamant in the opposite direction. Are you rehearsing for the lead role in Dr Jeckle and Mr. Hyde?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM

Rusty is really a chick. You’ll all see one day.

Axe on April 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

does she have big boobs and red hair?

arnold ziffel on April 3, 2013 at 2:39 AM

So at FN they occassionally do these contests where the goal is to take a celebrity and make them toothless. Not sure why. As some of you know I don’t follow celebrity. Hellfire to search for one I googled celebrity. Came up with the lady. Seems she is an actress. Simple question is, which one is better? I value your opinions on not just politics but other stuff too. Toothless.

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:39 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Just a few tens of minutes ago you seemed most adamant in the opposite direction. Are you rehearsing for the lead role in Dr Jeckle and Mr. Hyde?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM

Maybe a few of us are.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:41 AM

P.S. Which one makes her look the most toothless?

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:41 AM

P.S. Which one makes her look the most toothless?

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:41 AM

She has a mouth? Really? Who knew… O_O

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:42 AM

does she have big boobs and red hair?

arnold ziffel on April 3, 2013 at 2:39 AM

maybe red boobs and big hair. Is that all that’s important to you???!!! What about her mind?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:42 AM

Maybe a few of us are.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:41 AM

One is enough.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:44 AM

For those of you still here, don’t you think miss Lindsay looked exceptionally fetching in the screen cap for tonight’s QOTD?

arnold ziffel on April 3, 2013 at 2:44 AM

For those of you still here, don’t you think miss Lindsay looked exceptionally fetching in the screen cap for tonight’s QOTD?

arnold ziffel on April 3, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Definitely 2:59am material.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:45 AM

maybe red boobs and big hair. Is that all that’s important to you???!!! What about her mind?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:42 AM

We’ll get to that later after she makes breakfast.

arnold ziffel on April 3, 2013 at 2:45 AM

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:42 AM

She’s pretty popular. Which one is more toothless looking?

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:47 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM
I’m going to let this whole topic go now. I don’t think you have changed your mind or that anyone has said anything to make you rethink your position, it looks like you just don’t want to discus it any more. I don’t hate you dude, I just believe that you have come to a wrong and foolish conclusion.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM

Why would you let it go? You’re absolutely right. I don’t think the gop should let a very small demographic dictate the way they form policy. It certainly makes no sense driving away a significant portion of it’s base for an almost insignificant demographic that is predisposed to vote against them anyway.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:48 AM

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:39 AM

Them ain’t even real;) You know who you need to do a spread on, Gil Elvgrin’s pinups, classy and refined, I am particular to the one that is in the Halloween outfit on the broom, reminds me of someone;)

MarshFox on April 3, 2013 at 2:49 AM

I will disagree with you slightly with regards to the deporting of 11+ million illegals. I believe that if we actually aggressively enforced our immigration laws, threw in prison anyone who declared their state county or city a sanctuary and ran Operation Wet-Back styled immigration sweeps like Eisenhower, the problem would be solved in 5 or 10 years.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM

We’re just never going to have Eisenhower Operation Wet-Back-styled immigration sweeps anymore than we are going to round up illegals or Muslims and send them to “relocation camps” like FDR did. The politics are dramatically changed and I can’t see any politician of either party as President ordering such sweeps. It would be political suicide and maybe more.

Look, I’m arguing the optics, politics, and reality of the situation. As someone, who came here legally, I would love to see those that didn’t sent back to their own countries to have to go through the legal procedure. I don’t say this because I harbour some animus to one “race” or another. I don’t. Frankly, it could be all Brits coming in here illegally and I would feel the same way. I know many people that are awaiting visas to come here. I just know that it isn’t going to happen and I’m trying to be realistic about the situation.

I, likewise, know that the even Labour, which abandoned its core constituencies – the working and middle classes even unions, to a degree – for this swarm of new immigrant voters from Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, etc), the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia have come to the realisation that they were wrong. They lost, not only because they bankrupted the country during the 13 year reign of error under Blair and Brown, but because they called they natural constituents “bigots,” “racists,” and “selfish, ignorant people.” Well, even Red Ed Miliband, the leader of Labour, has admitted that native Brits have legitimate concerns and those concerns are not “racist.”

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:49 AM

Came up with the lady. Seems she is an actress. Simple question is, which one is better? I value your opinions on not just politics but other stuff too. Toothless.

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:39 AM

She had a nice outfit on and seemed sincere in her speech.

arnold ziffel on April 3, 2013 at 2:49 AM

IMHO it is the first one Bmore:)

MarshFox on April 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:41 AM
One is enough.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Then I’ll leave it to you and your sockpuppets or the other commenter who thinks that pandering to one small group will diametrically change an election but pandering to another will not. Especially since pandering to either or both of the groups would net the same thing. Zero difference in the next election.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:51 AM

MarshFox on April 3, 2013 at 2:49 AM

I love all those pinups. Can’t find one with her mouth open so I can take her teeth out.

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:55 AM

Then I’ll leave it to you and your sockpuppets or the other commenter who thinks that pandering to one small group will diametrically change an election but pandering to another will not. Especially since pandering to either or both of the groups would net the same thing. Zero difference in the next election.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:51 AM

You are the one who went from Mr. Hyde to Doctor Jeckle. You completely reversed just about everything from what you had been so adamant about. I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like it. And it wasn’t like either opposite was with any humor.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM
That last post of mine that you reposted was in response to astonerii. Perhaps, Schad will explain to you what my dealing with astonerii has been reduced to in the last several months where even an Albert Camus quote, which is self-evident, brings about a freakout on his part.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

The exchange pretty much speaks for itself I think. What background do you have with asteroni that would shed any more thoughts on you opinion of which small group we should pander to that’ll never vote for us anyway?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM

You are the one who went from Mr. Hyde to Doctor Jeckle. You completely reversed just about everything from what you had been so adamant about. I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like it. And it wasn’t like either opposite was with any humor.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM

Did you miss a big chunk of the thread?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

Dire is not here.

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

…I can’t find Dave, either.

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

That argument was about one thing one thing and one thing only. A regular commenter here being intimidated solely because of his opinion. That has nothing to do with this thread though and I’m not sure what would make you bring it up.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM

Maybe that is how you saw the argument, but I didn’t. Why would I bring anything outside of this thread up? Oh, I don’t know. You have by bringing up my position on SSM, which has nothing to do with “broadening the base.” I am not a Republican so “the base” thing doesn’t work with me. Never has. Never will.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

Did you miss a big chunk of the thread?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

Well, I saw you as Mr. Hyde and then as Mr. Jeckle. Did you play Abbott and Costello earlier?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:02 AM

Bmore on April 3, 2013 at 2:55 AM

Use the red head in the wash tub, her teeth are showing:)

MarshFox on April 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM

I am not a Republican so “the base” thing doesn’t work with me. Never has. Never will.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

Well, I get that. But you are very vocal about the gop and mostly critical about it’s social conservatives. You obviously want to have an effect. Your comment to asteroni was replete with advice on voting stats with gays and quite a large condemnation on conservatives within the party. Have you also said you’d welcome their departure from the party?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM

The exchange pretty much speaks for itself I think. What background do you have with asteroni that would shed any more thoughts on you opinion of which small group we should pander to that’ll never vote for us anyway?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM

I am not suggesting that you pander to anyone. If you or JannyMae or Astonerii or whomever is going to make a claim, at least be factual about it. JannyMae’s claim was not factual. Gays do not vote for Democrats in the same percentage that blacks do. They just don’t.

I corrected the record. Evidently, you see that as my suggesting that you pander to someone. No, I am not advising you do anything like that at all, but it might help your team, if certain members of it, didn’t call people, 31% of whom voted for Republicans, “mentally or biologically defective.”

I don’t know. Maybe, it’s just good manners.

Nevertheless, here’s my suggestion for you: Don’t read what I write. Don’t take anything that I write under advisement or even think about it for a nanosecond. We are wasting our time debating one another.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM
Well, I saw you as Mr. Hyde and then as Mr. Jeckle. Did you play Abbott and Costello earlier?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:02 AM

You give yourself credit for being one of the brighter commenters here don’t you? Go read the thread again.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM

You give yourself credit for being one of the brighter commenters here don’t you? Go read the thread again.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM

Save me some time. Was Shad right when he said you were “bishing”? I seem to recall you saying no.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:09 AM

Hi KOOLAID2.

Dire might be Dave. They are never seen together. Maybe Dave will admit he is Dire but Dire will never admit to being Dave.

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 3:14 AM

Have you also said you’d welcome their departure from the party?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM

They are more than welcome to depart the party. As I have said – REPEATEDLY ON HOT AIR – I have NEVER been a Republican. Never. Not.One.Single.Day.

Your party can do whatever it likes. In fact, so opposed was I to Obama, that I said for the year leading up to the election – AGAIN, ON HOT AIR – that I was a libertarian and registered independent, but I would vote for whomever the Republicans nominated because he or she would be the only alternative to Obama that had a chance of beating him.

If you guys want to form the SoCon Party, go for it…and, by the way, you won’t find a much greater defender of religious liberty than me. If you don’t believe me, go and read the HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilisation mandate threads over the past year. Pay close attention to my debates with Dante.

If it comes to the rights of gays or the rights of religious institutions, I am siding with the religious institutions. No religious institution should EVER be forced in any way, shape or form to amend it doctrine or perform SSM. Period. Story. End of.
I held the same position when it came to religious employers and contraception and whether they should be able to terminate employees that violated the religious tenets or claimed discrimination. See the threads on the Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC case, for some good examples.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:16 AM

We are wasting our time debating one another.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM

We’re hardly doing that.

I’m just trying to figure this all out. A big freaking chunk of the progressive republicans and libertarians here have said that the socons should hit the bricks over social issues. Rather than being honest and just saying they support ssm or abortion or whatever, the same progressive republicans and libertarians say the Conservatives are holding the party back because it prevents them from appealing to a larger base of voters. I read where some of you think that the net gain over ridding the gop of the “Neanderthal, Knuckle-Dragging, Bible-Thumping, Homophobes” (did I miss one) will be worth it because you’ll pull in that imaginary never-ending fountain of independents by supporting their progressive issue causes.

But you’ve said it won’t work with illegal aliens.

Okay. That’s fair logic.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:16 AM

I seem to recall you saying no.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:09 AM

Is that what I said? Or did I ask him why he would say that?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:17 AM

Aunt L HT Fallon.

Bmore on April 2, 2013 at 11:39 PM

…if only someone could hack that picture instead of the one…leading to this thread

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2013 at 3:21 AM

Is that what I said? Or did I ask him why he would say that?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:17 AM

If you were roll playing, then you should have been gratified that people went after you, and the more the better, but you didn’t seem to be at all. Maybe you overacted some. When in a sarcastic role, it’s not necessary to use a sarc tag, in fact that rather spoils it, but it works better to leave a few overt clues as you are going along, especially when under the same ID.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:22 AM

Not everyone sits through a many hours long movie and without a restroom or concession stand break.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:24 AM

“Neanderthal, Knuckle-Dragging, Bible-Thumping, Homophobes”

Yeah…

He is using a form of MK-ULTRA to get non-sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, totalitarian theocrats to become sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, totalitarian theocrats so that Obama will be defeated

“Racist-bigoted-misogynistic-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic-sister-and-cousin-marrying-squirrel-eating-tooth-brushing-hair-combovering-snake-handling-dirt-eating-gun-rack-pick-up-driving-Bible-thumping-totalitarian-teabagging-white-Christian-Southern-Fried-Rock-playing-theocratic Neanderthals”

I can give you more of them, but I didn’t know that you required a sarc tag.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:25 AM

But you’ve said it won’t work with illegal aliens.

Okay. That’s fair logic.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:16 AM

OK, I may have figured it out. You were your own doubleganger “sockpuppet” then.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:28 AM

One last thing before I sign off, I called for BOR to be suspended for his “Bible thumping” comment last week. You can look it up, if you can find the thread on it.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:29 AM

One last thing before I sign off, I called for BOR to be suspended for his “Bible thumping” comment last week. You can look it up, if you can find the thread on it.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:29 AM

Wouldn’t it be cool if we could hack into BOR and change all his Bible to Koran?

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:31 AM

If you were roll playing, then you should have been gratified that people went after you, and the more the better, but you didn’t seem to be at all. Maybe you overacted some. When in a sarcastic role, it’s not necessary to use a sarc tag, in fact that rather spoils it, but it works better to leave a few overt clues as you are going along, especially when under the same ID.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:22 AM

I can give you more of them, but I didn’t know that you required a sarc tag.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 3:25 AM

Vordaj, when you can maintain a conversation without the need of a sockpuppet, I’ll consider your advice more seriously. When you can carry on a conversation without getting personal as a debate tactic, I’ll consider it more seriously. Otherwise, since you both mentioned it, I’m going to need lessons if there are bonafide, required time I must use sarc tags. Personally, I hate them.

Joel Hodgson of MST3000 once said that not everyone was going to get the humor on his show. But the right people would.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:36 AM

Vordaj, when you can maintain a conversation without the need of a sockpuppet, I’ll consider your advice more seriously. When you can carry on a conversation without getting personal as a debate tactic, I’ll consider it more seriously. Otherwise, since you both mentioned it, I’m going to need lessons if there are bonafide, required time I must use sarc tags. Personally, I hate them.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:36 AM

When I get personal? You are the diva there. I already told you it’s better without sarc tags, you just need a little finesse, or humor, or something, otherwise it all falls flat.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:44 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:36 AM
When I get personal? You are the diva there. I already told you it’s better without sarc tags, you just need a little finesse, or humor, or something, otherwise it all falls flat.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 3:44 AM

Interesting choice of words.

Hopefully all those who want to fundamentally transform America will have no more ultimate success than they had doing that in Afghanistan.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 2:01 AM

It was your comment that I wanted to “fundamentally transform America” not mine. Hardly being a diva if I politely state I thought it was a cheap shot you implying to my involvement in the war was less than successful just for you to make another point that had zero to do with the thread topic. I know it’s a subject you like to return to, to somehow deride my involvement. But come on, it was completely out in left field.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:58 AM

It was your comment that I wanted to “fundamentally transform America” not mine.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:58 AM

Well, that’s what you were advocating by calling for amnesty. If you were playing “sockpuppet” or Mr. Hyde or whatever, you should have wanted such a reaction and been disappointed otherwise.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:03 AM

As to the wars in Afcrapistan and Iraqistan, they have been successful – just not for America.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:04 AM

The connection between thinking America can win muslim hearts-and-minds and thinking conservatives can win third world Mexican hearts-and-minds should be obvious.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:07 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Well, that’s what you were advocating by calling for amnesty. If you were playing “sockpuppet” or Mr. Hyde or whatever, you should have wanted such a reaction and been disappointed otherwise.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:03 AM

I’m getting the impression you consider it very important to characterize my using my one and only account here as sock-puppeting. Is that because I always catch you using yours so easily? I realize that must be frustrating for you but come on. Hardly sock-puppeting like you. How many do you even have now?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:08 AM

you implying to my involvement in the war was less than successful

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:58 AM

I never expected you to carry Petraeus on your back and think you would have been better utilized elsewhere … … … like on our southern border!

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM

As to the wars in Afcrapistan and Iraqistan, they have been successful – just not for America.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:04 AM

The connection between thinking America can win muslim hearts-and-minds and thinking conservatives can win third world Mexican hearts-and-minds should be obvious.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:07 AM

With you never having been to a war, how do you even measure that success? Especially since you’re so obviously biased against Muslims anyway. You see you’re biased, no?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 3:58 AM
I never expected you to carry Petraeus on your back and think you would have been better utilized elsewhere … … … like on our southern border!

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM

Southern Border? I wouldn’t have been legally allowed to serve in that capacity being part of the Active Army. But you knew that. You’re so smart.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:12 AM

With you never having been to a war, how do you even measure that success? Especially since you’re so obviously biased against Muslims anyway. You see you’re biased, no?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM

I lost “my war” too and it was also a stupid one. And yes, I am VERY BIASED against the followers of the mass murdering, mass torturing, mass enslaving, rapist of little girls, The Monster Who Walked The Earth, Islam’s “Perfect Man” Mohammad.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:13 AM

With you never having been to a war, how do you even measure that success?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM

If Afcrapistan looks to you like a success, I’d hate to see what you thought was a failure.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:14 AM

I never expected you to carry Petraeus on your back and think you would have been better utilized elsewhere … … … like on our southern border!

PS

I also never expected a US citizen to call for the execution of my military leaders during a time of war either. But you managed to even rationalize that.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:15 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM
If Afcrapistan looks to you like a success, I’d hate to see what you thought was a failure.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:14 AM

Well, it’s academic that you couldn’t describe it to me.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:16 AM

Southern Border? I wouldn’t have been legally allowed to serve in that capacity being part of the Active Army. But you knew that. You’re so smart.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:12 AM

I said I thought you would have been better utilized there. I didn’t say you should have formed your own army and gone there.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:18 AM

The economy is in shambles. And prices are going up. Is anyone concerned?

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 4:20 AM

I also never expected a US citizen to call for the execution of my military leaders during a time of war either. But you managed to even rationalize that.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:15 AM

I don’t want Petraeus executed, just in prison.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:21 AM

The economy is in shambles. And prices are going up. Is anyone concerned?

SparkPlug on April 3, 2013 at 4:20 AM

Not me. I plan on getting rich selling fake documentation to millions of illegals so they can vote democrat early and often sooner.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:22 AM

I lost “my war” too and it was also a stupid one. And yes, I am VERY BIASED against the followers of the mass murdering, mass torturing, mass enslaving, rapist of little girls, The Monster Who Walked The Earth, Islam’s “Perfect Man” Mohammad.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:13 AM

You’ve implied you had “no” wars. I’ve asked you. (Maybe you should have used sarc tags to add a little finesse, or humor, or something, otherwise it all falls flat..)

Anyway, I’ve had three. Multiple to each. I don’t resent you trying to tell me my business but it is at the very least … annoying. Especially on a thread that had zero to do with me being in any of them. Again, just a cheap shot.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:24 AM

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:15 AM
I don’t want Petraeus executed, just in prison.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:21 AM

Um, you said you wanted them “hung”.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM

I said I thought you would have been better utilized there. I didn’t say you should have formed your own army and gone there.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:18 AM

Are you being obtuse? I wouldn’t have been allowed to serve there in the US Army.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:27 AM

You’ve implied you had “no” wars. I’ve asked you. (Maybe you should have used sarc tags to add a little finesse, or humor, or something, otherwise it all falls flat..)

We have only been trough this about twice before.

Anyway, I’ve had three. Multiple to each. I don’t resent you trying to tell me my business but it is at the very least … annoying. Especially on a thread that had zero to do with me being in any of them. Again, just a cheap shot.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:24 AM

Afcrapistan is probably our stupidest war and your being there or not has nothing to do with my concluding that.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:38 AM

Are you being obtuse? I wouldn’t have been allowed to serve there in the US Army.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:27 AM

Not obtuse at all. I said I thought you would have been better utilized there. (the same with the rest of those who were sent to Afcrapistan). That’s a very clear statement, in spite of you wanting to read something else into it.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:42 AM

We have only been trough this about twice before.

If we had, I certainly don’t remember you making a claim. I recall you being vague which is a convenient way to let a person draw their own conclusion without you have to tell a lie. Are you saying you served in a war or not?

Afcrapistan is probably our stupidest war and your being there or not has nothing to do with my concluding that.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:38 AM

I’ll state again, it’s hard to take you serious when you use childish terms. I get the impression you’re early 60s right? Afcrapistan. Really?

I’m also surprised you thought I’d be able to serve on the border. Do you really not know?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:42 AM

Um, you said you wanted them “hung”.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM

Well if I did, I’m sure I was speaking metaphorically. Maybe I said “Patton would have hung them”.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:43 AM

That’s a very clear statement, in spite of you wanting to read something else into it.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:42 AM

In spite of you wanting to add some vagary to a subject you seem ignorant on, I couldn’t, we couldn’t have served there regardless of the wars. Do you really not understand?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:45 AM

I’ll state again, it’s hard to take you serious when you use childish terms. I get the impression you’re early 60s right? Afcrapistan. Really?

I hate to break this to you but Afcrapistan is catching on and rightfully so.

I’m also surprised you thought I’d be able to serve on the border. Do you really not know?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2013 at 4:42 AM

Can’t you read? I said you would have been better utilized there.

VorDaj on April 3, 2013 at 4:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5