Can you name anything your favorite candidate has accomplished ..........

Not at all. Doing what we are doing consists of turning a blind eye to the topic as often as possible. Actually enforcing the laws we have would be a pleasant departure from that.

I don't consider McCain's plan as plausible as mine simply because his plan exacerbates the problem, it doesn't solve it in any way. Illegals currently are not collecting wellfare and foodstamps -- they can't legally. They are being paid cash wages below or at minimum wage, but they are not paying taxes. In the meantime, they cannot be turned away at hospitals and if they drop a kid in this country, that kid goes to school and IS eligible for all of those social entitlements.

They all come out of OUR wallets.

That kid is entitled to those social entitlements whether he was dropped here or not. ( once again see Pliny vs.DOE(1982)) It is already coming out of your wallet. So why not make that investment that you making anyway worth something. Make them citizens, Some of them might surprise you.
 
That just about qualifies him to be a good military commander. What's he done as a politician?

If John Kerry's Vietnam War record was irrelevant, so is McCain's. I tolerate double standards less from my own side of the aisle than the other.

We are talking about two different things. I was speaking not of his "war:record, but of his entire military career. John McCain's greatest accomplishments in the Navy came after the war. He made a career of it and served honorably. John Kerry threw his medals(or ribbons, I can't remember which) at the White House. McCains "war" record is irrelevent. His military record is not.

P.S. I have great respect and admiration for anyone that steps up and answers the call. This includes John Kerry, but he made his military record part of the debate, not the GOP. Any scrutiny he faced on the matter was his own doing.
 
You made a very good observation, though. And that is, one of the reasons nothing has been done about continued illegal immigration into this country is to protect a cheap source of labor for the corporatists. Truth is, our produce and other goods, as well as services, would all cost more if illegals came out of the shadows of the underground economy and into the light of being legitimate taxpaying workers. Are Americans willing to accept those increased costs? I don't think so. They'll shop at Wal-Mart, killing the local businesses in their area in the process, and accepting cheap goods produced by children and almost slave labor, in order to save pennies. Might be true. Then again, without the illegals maybe we could get the welfare bums out into the fields.

So, what's the answer? Personally, I think that enforcement of current immigration laws would be a start. The big question is HOW do we enforce those laws without ejecting millions of people who are hard-workers, productive, raise their families here and help us get goods and services at affordable prices? We don't. Instead we hammer the employers. The illegals will leave when the jobs dry up. And, please remember, these hard working productive family men and women are criminals.

I'm not sure what the answer is.. but I'm kind of liking the "virtual wall" that Arizona has started using. It's not as onerous as a wall, yet enables that State to protect itself from an influx of additional people. I think AZ is the state that is witch hunting the employers and the aliens are moving to other states.


The same logic used to say that blacks are more predisposed to commit crimes will garner a "racist" tag. Which logic is right?
 
Kerry's military record was largely fraudulent and lasted only a few months, McCain's was legit and lasted many long years.

Campaign finance reform is probably his biggest political accomplishment.

Ah... the good old swiftboat lies..... disparage someone who served, but aggrandize the rich, useless son of 10th generation wealth.... really sad.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
 
The same logic used to say that blacks are more predisposed to commit crimes will garner a "racist" tag. Which logic is right?

Umm both. They are completely compatible.

Nobody said that immigrants are predisposed to commit less crimes. People claim, incorrectly, that they commit MORE crimes. After all them damn mexicans are a bunch of criminals right? Only problem is that immigrants actually commit less crimes.
 
Originally Posted by pegwinn
The same logic used to say that blacks are more predisposed to commit crimes will garner a "racist" tag. Which logic is right?
Umm both. They are completely compatible.

Nobody said that immigrants are predisposed to commit less crimes. People claim, incorrectly, that they commit MORE crimes. After all them damn mexicans are a bunch of criminals right? Only problem is that immigrants actually commit less crimes.

As proven by prison stats. got it. got no problemo w/it. just observing that if you use prison stats to demonstrate that blacks commit more crime than whites, you will be tagged as a racist. So, the methodology is selective to the user and the audience.
 

Forum List

Back
Top