m.g. scottclearfield, UTTyler DGood point, the idea of
radical Muslims being either right or left as per our American perception of
politics is an apples and oranges argument. I have always wondered how the NAZI
party of WW11 Germany was a "right wing" government when the term stood
for "National Socialism". ============ They
high-jacked the term "National Socialist" as a misnormer to appease and
draw support from the blue-collar Germans who wanted stronger Unions and leaned
Communist.When in fact, the Nazis never owned a single
"business" or saw to the equal dispersement of the wealth -- as an
actual Socialist would have done.They round up and executed:CommunistsLiberalsProgressives, HomosexualsImmigrantsthe poor, addicts, homeless and the termanally ill.They were pro-MilitaryPro-Christianand Ultra-National, like a
contest to see who could be the MOST German. Pretty much
verbatim of America's Right-Wing today.
@Claudio:"Pretty sure a couple hundred thousand Native Americans would
disagree."I think the Indians lost the battles... All except
with Custer. And, 'to the victor goes the spoils' have you not heard?
That includes the war with Mexico over Texas and much of the West.@JoeBlow:"Can anyone tell me the legislation that was passed
then?"Can anyone identify what legislation is needed to be
passed? Our immigration laws are just fine. What is needed now and was needed
under the prior administration was enforcement of the immigration laws on the
books.@Tyler D:"Comprehensive immigration reform needs to
turn off the job magnet (for illegals) permanently..."The job
magnet will never be turned off. There are too many Hispanic votes at stake."... otherwise it is not reform at all but just a jobs program for
Latin America."That's what it is now... and it will not
change soon, if ever.
"The leadership of unions representing thousands of immigration agents now
contend that the Obama Administration - specifically the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) - is implementing a new policy that forces officials to ignore
the law and allow illegal immigrants to stay in this country with no verifiable
documentation. The concern is clear: the Obama Administration's
lax enforcement of our immigration policy now becomes even worse - with border
agents claiming they are under threat of losing their jobs if they don't
give illegal immigrants a pass." The ICE union has a lawsuit
against Obama, so far the ruling by a Federal judge has not favored Obama,
stating he can not stop ICE from arresting people who break the law. Obama counted people turned away at the border as deportations. Other
Presidents have listed them separately. Obama spent his first four
years trying to destroy out immigration laws.
"...the borders are more secure now than ever in our recent history "That doesn't say much. The borders were never secured enough. And
never will be. We have too much border and there are too many ways to breach
it.Furthermore, it's not the border so much that is the
problem. The biggest problem is... about 43 percent of illegal enter with
visas, but overstay. They are as illegal as anyone crossing the border without
permission. Nothing, absolutely nothing is being done about that abuse.
I found it interesting that during Obamas recent trip to Mexico, they asked
Obama to try to stop the flood of weapons coming into Mexico from the U.S.
Ironic that is, because the very fact of people being able to come into the U.S.
with drugs and such is the answer to why the guns going south can't be
stopped. Sounds like the Mexicans want strict border control going only one
direction. I'm sure the irony was not lost on Obama, who had to tap dance
around that without being embarrased. Bottom line. Mexico, you want border
control for guns. Do it for drugs and people going both ways and maybe you will
get what you want. In the meantime, 95% of illegal drugs are still coming in
from Mexico. When the drug runners return, I'm sure many bring guns and
Tyler DGood point, the idea of radical Muslims being either right or
left as per our American perception of politics is an apples and oranges
argument. I have always wondered how the NAZI party of WW11 Germany was a
"right wing" government when the term stood for "National
Socialism". Truth is, attributes of any movement can cross political
boundries. In the case of radical Muslims, they may have some conservative
values as was pointed out by DC, but since they seem to be very opposed to any
kind of free society with the kind of liberties we value, i.e. religious
freedom, free speech, ect. one could definately call them totalitarian. And to
totalitarianism is bad whether religious based or secular.
@lost in DC – “but I see you are still in denial - radical muslims
are NOT right-wing - they are leftist.”Whenever someone starts
by saying “there are 2 kinds of people in the world…” you can
be almost guaranteed that the ideas to follow will be more ideological
Disneyland than reality. Anyway…Radical Muslims are not
Leftist or Right-wingers… they are Radical Muslims. They are basically
apolitical except for the sake of expediency. You won’t find their
ideology in Edmund Burke or Che Guevara, but in the Koran and Hadith.To try and fit them onto your antagonistic political spectrum is to ignore
reality… but by all means keep riding Space Mountain if it makes you feel
LDS Liberal - you claim "Uber-Conservatives" wont be happy until
America looks like East Germany with barbed wire, etc. Anyone listening during 5th grade world history would know that post WWII East
Germany was run by the soviets - who were extremist LEFT WING big government
types. The barbed wire and concrete fencing was to keep
people WITHIN that oppressive government system; not out. So comparing it to a
US border fence is just plan silly. The logic of you post says more about your
extremism than it does moderate, neo, or uber conservatives
No facts or numbers or references will be coming as glen or rush or sean
don't actually use facts or references.It's all opinion
and poor entertainment as far as I've been able to listen.
Speaking of Amnesty, did you read that the Heritage Foundation did a study and
come up with the paltry figure of 6.7 Trillion that amnesty is going to cost us.
All you open boarder supporters get out your check book and pay up. Viva LEGAL
Here is the problem with all this "secure our border" rhetoric. Until
we require visa's for visitors to come to our country, which none are
required.... people can just get in their car and drive across the border
claiming they are on family vacation disney. Or they can hop on a plane... and
fly to where they want to go.You could put a million men, and a wall
50 feet tall..... the door in the wall is wide open to visitors to this country.
If they choose to not exit... that is another situation. But as
"tourist".... the door is wide open.So build your wall.
Install gun towers. Plant mines up and down the whole length. Even fly
drones. Until we seal off our country to "visitors".... it is a HUGE
waste of time."secure our boarder" is again just rhetoric
masking as a logical argument.
"If the writer's unsupported, unsupportable blather is an indication of
the quality of information disseminated by the tiny, unknown organization he
claims to direct, I guess it's a good thing we've never heard of
it."@procuradorfiscal - and exactly where are your facts? Your
numbers? Your stats to back up your claims? You may be right....
but you supply not one shred of evidence to support your statements other than
very thinly vailed opinion passed as fact. If your going to make the above
statement, you sure had better do better yourself.... but alas.... nothing.Convince us. Support your statements with something other than passion.
LDS? Lib,you have come out strongly in favor of gay marriage and
abortion and everything else you say the muslims condemn. but just because they
oppose what you support does not automatically make them right-wing. after all,
they welcome the open borders you espouse
"There is a big problem with inconsistency in this country on both
sides."No Argument there from me.I seldom defend the
Dems, but I do point out that the GOP has done the same thing that Obama gets
blasted for daily on these boards.I think that the Clinton Quote is
applicable to both sides."It takes some brass to attack a guy
for doing what you did"Or it could be re-written."it takes some brass to attack a guy for not doing what you didn't
do"I applaud consistency. I find fault in both parties, and say
so daily on this board.
JoeBlowI was here. Actually, I was in high school doing a report on
it for one of my classes. I have had the same positions for each
president and their politics. I did not like Bush for his immigration and I do
not like Obama for his. There is a big problem with inconsistency
in this country on both sides. Republicans will do something and Dems will call
it bad. Then the Dems will do the exact same thing and the Reps will call it
bad. Let's be consistent everybody. If it's bad for one side,
it's bad for the other as well.
Apparentally the pro-amnesty advocates think if they lie often enough, and get
enough OTHERS to lie for them they can get their way. That only works if people
are misinformed. Commenters here aren't.Prior to 2009 when
border patrol was out patrolling the border and came across folks trying to make
it across they would stop them, usually supply them with drinking water, and/or
maybe some granola bars or other snacks and point them back south.Those
individuals weren't counted as "deportations".After
Obama was elected, they were."Apprehensions" are when the
illegal trespassers (usually) AGREE to be processed through a border patrol
station. They get a cursory physical, usually something to eat, and are sent
back. I think they also get fingerprinted, but I may be mistaken about that.Most of the individuals, if they are about to be apprehended just go back on
their own. Usually just move down the border a ways, or wait a day or two and
try again. They mostly don't want to be fingerprinted."Interdictions" and "apprehensions" are one and the same thing
since 2009.Thats why the statistics are so inflated.
lost in DCWest Jordan, UT...but I see you are still in denial
- radical muslims are NOT right-wing - they are leftist.============
Let's look at the evidence shall we...They are
against:AbortionPremarital sexHomosexualityPornographyDrugs and Alcohol and that the West has fallen into
moral decay and they are merely trying to obey God's will to clease the
earth.They believe God's laws supercede Man's lawsand whatever death and destruction they cause, it is God's will and NOT
their own.If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks
like a duck...Pretty much 100% right-wing.BTW - I have
yet to ear any of THAT rhetoric coming from the tree-hugging, bra-burning,
Why can't we just all get along and do ONLY legal immigration. The rest of
the world does it that way. Mexico does it that way, Guatemala does it that
way, Brazil, Philippines, Sudan, etc. Problem solved. Viva LEGAL immigration.
JoeBlow, legislation passed during the bush administration to build the
fence and improve other border security measures. BO would do NOTHING like that
- IF IF IF there has been any improvement in interdictions, it is BECAUSE of the
legislation passed by the bush administraiton.LDS? lib, thanks
for the apology - didn't think you had it in you.but I see you
are still in denial - radical muslims are NOT right-wing - they are leftist.and it is BO and his ilk that are creating a US stassi, not
lost in DCWest Jordan, UTIt may not have been the lamestream
media, but LDS? lib and other liberal posters on the board were screaming how it
had to be some right-wing Christian gun-nut. LDS? lib even said he’d
apologize if it turned out otherwise. He has not, but has continued to attack
conservatives.========== I NEVER said right-wing
"Christian".I said right-wing "Religous" nut-job.I was correct about that.And FYI - I did apologized for it not
being a Tea-Partier.Guns are not going to secure the borders.Prosectuting crooked greedy businesses who exploit cheap illegal labor,
thereby encouraging and rewarding them for breaking the law - will.
I guess it depends on how you define secure...
Uber-Conservatives won't feel secure until America looks like the former
East Germany - complete with concrete walls, barbed wire, and machine gun nests
- from Sea to shining Sea.
Saying because interdictions are up and the problem is fixed is like saying
since you’ve staunched the bleeding from the slit wrists and the patient
is OK, but you ignore the severed femoral arteries. And the blood from the
wrists is still oozing.Just because you plug 1 or 2 holes does not
mean you can deny the 37 other holes.Pragmatist,It may not
have been the lamestream media, but LDS? lib and other liberal posters on the
board were screaming how it had to be some right-wing Christian gun-nut. LDS?
lib even said he’d apologize if it turned out otherwise. He has not, but
has continued to attack conservatives.Claudio,1776 - and again
when the constitution was ratified. The Louisiana Purchase, Treaty of Hidalgo,
and the Gadsen Purchase also had something to do with it. Surprised you know so
little of our history that you would have to ask.
I fear that the only reason our border is currently "secure" is because
of the economy. Once jobs begin to grow at pre-financial crisis rates, I doubt
the border will remain secure for long. Comprehensive immigration
reform needs to turn off the job magnet (for illegals) permanently, otherwise it
is not reform at all but just a jobs program for Latin America.
Where was the conservative "outrage" for the GOP do something about
border security under GW Bush when the Republicans controlled both houses of
congress?Can anyone tell me the legislation that was passed then?Yes, the borders are still porous today. Just like they have been for
years.Basically, it is much easier to complain about what the other
guy does (or doesn't do) than it is to push YOUR guy to do something.
Re: ChrisWhen did this country become ours? When did we gain the
moral high ground in this issue? Pretty sure a couple hundred thousand Native
Americans would disagree.
Haha.. that caused eveyone associated with this regime, including the press, to
place preliminary blame for the Boston bombing on "angry white Christian
males"? What in the world do you listen to? That is a blatantly false
statement. Within two hours of the blasts I stood ten feet from both the CNN
and MSNBC crews and listened to them reporting how they had no idea who had done
this. There was plenty of speculation as to whether this was home grown or
foreign terrorism, and if it was home grown was it a Timothy McVeigh type or a
local Jihadist. Nobody was placing blame however they simply had no
information. BHO and his fellow leftists have a big soft spot for
radicalized Muslims..really? If you believe that I invite you to sit and have a
cup of coffee with one of these radicalized Muslims in an open café
somewhere in Pakistan while one of those little drones is flying overhead.
I have a dream...that my children will live in a country with no
illegal immigrantsObey the law or don't come to my country!
Would that be the same kind of "ignorance of facts, repeating of slogans and
myths", that caused eveyone associated with this regime, including the
press, to place preliminary blame for the Boston bombing on "angry white
Christian males"? A big part of securing our border, is to protect us from
fanatical, radicalized muxlims from eastern and mid easter countries, even
though BHO and fellow leftists have big soft spots in their heart for such
Lots of distortions and half-truths.Based on certain admissions by
Obama Administration personnel, the Administration effectively has been
"cooking the books" on deportation numbers, by falsely counting
"border turnaways" as "deportations." Meanwhile, it has largely
REFUSED to deport and instead has given orders to NOT deport. So really
it's smoke and mirrors.And the real problem people have with
so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" (Why ever in the world are
you using euphemisms? Are you afraid to candidly admit what this really is
about, amnesty?) is that amnesty, or legalization of illegal aliens, is the
opposite of real enforcement, at the border and also in the nation's
interior. Amnesty and enforcement are not complementary principles. They are
opposites."Our economic security, our social stability and our
world moral leadership has been, and is now, based on compassion and
logic..."Another half-truth. It also is based on allegiance to
the U.S. Constitution, and on respect for the rule of law.
Re: ". . . the borders are more secure now than ever in our recent history .
. . ."Yeah, and the writer knows that because he can see the
border from his back porch in SLC?Take it from one who's been
there recently, and whose family lives and works there -- notwithstanding
Obama-regime propaganda to the contrary -- our border with Mexico is anything
but secure. Drugs, guns, illegal aliens, terrorists, stolen cars and
aircraft, Chinese knockoffs of American products, uninspected beef and other
agricultural imports, unregulated medical and professional services, even
Mexican military units . . . pretty much anything you can imagine, flows freely
across our southern border.And, illegal immigration -- once on the
decline -- has literally exploded, recently, as a result of all the blather on
bi-partisan support for amnesty-based "comprehensive reform."If the writer's unsupported, unsupportable blather is an indication of
the quality of information disseminated by the tiny, unknown organization he
claims to direct, I guess it's a good thing we've never heard of it.