Amnesty and my membership in the Republican party
 

I'm not sure who said it first, but I have not left the Republican party, the Republican party has left me.

I've stood by GWB in spite of the fact that he is not a conservative (been over this before). I've grown gradually disillusioned with him over how the Iraq War has been fought (which I'm sure is not in like with why most here are unhappy about it), and with the immigration bill that sure looks like is going to be passed with his full freakin support.....it simply makes me sick.

The one Republican I directly vote for that I still respected, being AZ Senator Jon Kyl, has put his support behind this bill. Wow....each illegal will have to pay an interest free 5000 over 8 years, or $52/month. $52 a month. I wonder how much the cost of the social services that will be received is.

This is what had happened to the Republicans during the Ford Administration (for a wide variety of reasons). Everyone here knows I was a huge fan of Reagan, and I wonder if there is another Reagan out there. Guiliani isn't. McCain sure as hell isn't. Don't know enough about Romney to say. I like some of the others, but they haven't the name recognition or the fund raising capability to become real contenders.

I am sickened. I am very, very close to calling the Republican Party, telling them to go to hell, and becoming a libertarian (or just having no political affiliation).

:eek:






It's a start!





And if you ever, ya know, evolve that far ....





:cheers: gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept you, one of us

I am with you on this Leo. I too have become disillusioned with the Republican Party. I think the part that is bugging me the most is the influence that the Religious Right is having on the party.

I too have looked at the Libertarian party. I wish they could get organized and get a strong candidate. Our current political system is in SERIOUS need of a major shakeup (and when I say that, I include the Dems just as much as the Republicans).

Well, Leo, even though your political viewpoint has differed from mine, I always have respected your opinion, you're a fair individual and I find that a quality to also respect most highly.

Libertarian, Independant, or the political party of no name, you've got my vote as one cool cat regardless of politics.

I'm sorry you're in a quagmire, but as iSm said, it's a start!

Oh, and :eek: who'da thunk it?

/looks around for polar bears and smoke monsters.

I agreed with many of the aspects of the Republican party. Way back when I was 18, completely unjaded by the process and the Religious Right wasn't so involved in taking away rights of women and people who are gay.

Now I'm jaded by the process, the system. There are the Republicrats and the Democrins. The parties are the same. The process needs a make-over. Where is Ty Pennington when you need him.

Don't think of it as a party change. Think of it as following your politics. They are no longer in your party.

In jail.

Well, then he fits right in with either party!

Damn Republicans locking up the gays.



yes, I know he was arrested for a DUI

I know the feeling.
for geebus sake, Im an NRA member. I was asked once if NRA stood for "New Republican Army". (a whole other clusterfvck I wont get into)...we're supposed to have an elephant tatooed across our back. instead, seeing everything that has transpired and still seems headed downhill (or perhaps off a cliff) I feel more like I have a jacka$$ tatooed across my forehead and an ACTUAL elephant on my back.

last time amnesty was granted to illegally resident aliens, there was a mad rush...literally, a mad rush of people streaming THROUGH the border check points and actual gates to get into the country before the cutoff took effect. Running up the freeway!!

Ted Kennedy said "never again...that was useless" and yet comes out in favor of it again. Bush endorses it. both sides lose face in this one. In addition, they lost me as well.

then again with this damn fence. they cant keep people from tunneling a mile in distance underground to avoid detection and a fence is going to make the difference?

uh huh.


bastards all


I quit.

I'm curious which of the remaining low profile candidates interest you since most of them are frothing religious right types, the support of which seems inconsistent with libertarian leanings.

Hey Leo,

I hear ya. Many years ago, when I was still in my 20s, I decided that the Democratic Party was not representing me. I didn't call anyone to tell them to go to hell, I just changed my party affiliation to Libertarian.

Here's the rub: I rarely vote Libertarian for the big offices. There always seems to be too much at stake. And, since the Lib party tends to have fewer potential candidates, the Primaries are pretty much a no-go for me.

If you're really thinking of ditching the Republicans, keep that in mind. In recent history, the primary elections have been more contentious and exciting than the general elections. Making a point today might have an uncomfortable secondary effect on your ability to shape policy as a party member.

I don't love that you're a Republican, but I know that you're "one of the good ones".

Good luck with your decision.

Kudos to all for honesty regarding the major parties. We are not two kinds of people - we are many-faceted. :cheers:

I dumped the Republicans after the Contract with America failed. Never could quit sign onto the other side either. I still hate both parties with a passion and will probably once again stick to my Libertarian stance in the coming election. I've never voted for a Democrat.

The two party system is garbage.

Perhaps this is not the place ... ok, maybe it is.

A question for the Cap'n Jacks and scaeagles of the world:

1) What is it about the immigration situation you'd like to see done?

2) Despite what you'd like to see done, what do you think realistically can be done?

3) Despite what you think can and should be done, in a nation of millions of people, is immigration an issue where you are willing to compromise with the millions of other opinions that should count no more or less than yours?

Well, this is an insight. I am curious, though. The Contract with America was ballyhooed in 1994. How did a 17-year-old Jewish girl come to say, "Yeah, that Newt Gingrich. He speaks for me."

1) use the rules and law already in place to stop one of the primary reasons for the illegal immigration in the first place. illegal alien entries know well in advance of their arrival that american corporations and companies will hire them regardless of the laws in place to prevent it. they even know which companies to apply to and even in some cases, who to talk to. since these corporations use illegally resident workers to enhance their workforces for lower than standard wages, they make profits that they then in turn use as 'incentives' for political figures and those charged with enforcing such laws to turning a blind eye when it comes to enforcement.
stop that, you stem at least some of the flow.

2) yes. there have already been cases where the feds fall on a company rampantly undercutting standard wage rules and using illegally resident workforces to bolster company profits. these companies, despite their cries of 'we cant live without them' have survived and thrived. perhaps not as well as before while raking in massive profits, but nor do they have to line the pockets of those restraining the enforcement of resident labor laws already in place.

3) if its fair and even handed, has no back door adjendas and still works to solve the problem rather than mask it....sure.

Yay! More libertarians!

Come to the dark side.... we have martinis :)

I don't really have a problem with amnesty. With 12 million already here I don't see a truly practical alternative.

But before an amnesty can be implemented we need to have effectively closed the door behind them. Otherwise in 10 years we'll just be arguing about whether to grant amnesty to the 12 million new people who have shown up illegally.

So I'd support an enforcement first approach.

Of course, that is within the existing framework of severely limited caps on immigration. Which I don't support.

And it should be noted that for those considering movement to the Libertarian party over this particular issue that the official party stance is the removal of barriers to movement across borders.

Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter
Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is quite religious and vocally so, but I really don't fear any religious overtaking of the government.

I don't know if he is electable, and he certainly doesn't fit in the lesser known category, but I'd love to see Newt in it simply for what he'd add to the debate.

I will admit Romney's reaction to this amnesty plan makes me take more interest in him.

To respond to ISM:
First of all, don't get too excited. I'm discouraged with the party because they aren't enough like Reagan anymore. And yes, I realize that Reagan did the same damn amnesty crap, and it is perhaps my biggest disappointment with him.

What do I think should be done about immigration?
Secure the border. Don't tell me it can't be done. Saudi Arabia is building a very high tech fence along their border with Iraq. It can be done. Once that is done, start the deportation. And add a Constitutional Amendment so that birth on the soil of the US of A doesn't make you a citizen automatically.

What can be done realistically?
The fence and the amendment. Deportations....not going to happen.

I go back and forth with tamper proof national ID cards, which I think could realistically happen.

Question 3 -
Expect the laws on the books to be adhered to. If there is popular support to change them, then change them.
I can compromise. But I don't see this plan as any sort of compromise. I suppose this is what representative government is all about....we elect 100, 435, and 1 to sort through these issues and compromise for us. I am dissatisfied (an understatement) with the elected representatives and it will be difficult to vote for Kyl again. I am not one to cast protest votes, though, so if he's running against someone who would be worse, I will, of course, vote for him again (he isn't up for 5 years....perhaps he expects the anger to subside, and it very well may).

Yeah....that does suck, and it will prevent me from joining (among other things....like really odd candidates).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070518/...SSLZULcYoE1vAI

Too bad they don't really have a handle on what the problem really is....the parties are too much alike and not extreme enough. This third party is like RC cola saying "try us, Coke and Pepsi are too extreme".

Frankly I don't like this; flashbacks of Ross Perot handing Clinton the White House.

Yeah, good luck with that, Leo.

And peace to all the Libertarians that continue to vote Republican. Whatever gets you through, babe!

I believe all three raised their hands at the debate when the group was asked who does not believe in evolution.

Boy, are they adhered to. Immigration appeals command a lot of resources in the Ninth Circuit. As I sit here, I'm working on an appeal from an unlawful reentry conviction. Fellow got 86 months for coming back in to work and see his family. It's his third conviction.

I disagree. The laws are NOT applied properly. The one law that is not enforced nearly well enough is prevention of keeping people from unlawfully entering our country. The flow of illegal immigrants needs to be stopped.

I was raised in a Rebublican household. I firmly believed that the Republicans were the party of lower taxes, smaller government, and more personal responsibility, meaning more freedom to make decisions about my own life. I was anti-gun control, anti-smoking laws, anti-seatbelt/bike helmet laws, anti-censorship. I was anti-welfare, anti-medicare....basically, I thought people could take care of themselves, and if they couldn't, they didn't deserve what they couldn't earn. I read lots of Ayn Rand. I was a big fan of Desert Storm, and was just fine with the concept of policing the world, because I thought America had everything correct, and the rest of the world was backward, ignorant, and in need of some ass-kicking to get on track and away from their bad systems.

I still hold some of these beliefs to some degree, others I have tossed. Mostly what I've learned is the world is not black and white, hence my anger at the two party system.

As the Republicans showed me just how much they loved big gov't, I got disillusioned and moved on. I was a real-deal Libertarian until 9/11 happened. That's when I realized that a) the Libertarians had no idea what real Americans were thinking, meaning they'll never be a successful party and b) real Americans actually loved being safe instead of free, which we're now committed to, forever and ever.

I have no further delusions about the future of America. Like every other country in the history of civilization, we've had our peak, and we're headed downhill. We've peaked in productivity, freedom of expression, and our affect on the world stage, and now we're not leading the world in any aspect of anything. Part of the reason for this is our political system, and our fears. Without the capacity for risk, we're an overblown joke.

I mean.......we bought blinds for our kitchen. Blinds. You pull the cord, they go up and down. These blinds have a yellow and black WARNING LABEL on the bottom. As if we bought something dangerous. Well of course it's dangerous - a child could strangle themselves on the cord. We no longer live in a strong, bold society. We live in fear of everything, we assume that people are stupid enough to let their child get strangled on a cord, and we feel the maker of the blinds is responsible if this happens. What kind of world are we living in?

This is why I do not debate politics at all anymore. In high school I was seriously considering creating a debate club at our school, and eventually becoming a political journalist. By the time I graduated I realized that was all over. If you want to make a difference, you can step up and be a true martyr - all the rest is blowhard armchair BS. I decided I didn't want to exchange my life for a political one, and therefore, I bowed out of the whole deal.

I do wish America the best of luck...it still is home, and I still think I'll stay, at least until I truly feel that my own freedoms are being strangled enough that I have to leave.

What she said

See, and I thought you were against big government....

National ID cards are pretty big government if you ask me, next thing you know, we'll be legally required to have them on our person at all times, just like the French.

For employment purposes, there is already a national ID card (your social security card, or if you don't have one the appropriate paperwork). So making one that actually fulfills that role isn't much of an increase in big government.

Annoyingly, it's not supposed to be a form of ID. I remember that the perforated sheet mine came on (my mom's crazy and kept the sheet as well as the card) actually had, "Not a valid form of ID" printed on it. I always use my passport when asked for ID by employers.

Morrigoon and Alex have stated my major reasons against and why I am not so against the national ID card.

I hate the concept, but in essence we already do have one. In all reality it is next to impossible to do anything without your social security number, and that, as we know, isn't very secure.

I am against big government. However, since one of the only Constitutionally mandated functions of the feds is to protect and control our borders (and therefore control the flow of people into it), it might be a valid function as a tool to get people out that don't belong.

No, it is not supposed to be a valid for of ID (that's why I said "for employment purposes" not "for identification purposes"). But it is a valid form of evidence that you are eligible to work in this country. And, as such, it only seems appropriate that it bear the ability to match that eligibility to the person holding the card.

Since the primary goal of illegal immigration is employment (as much as some would like to believe it is terrorism, welfare, anchor babies, and sleeping with our wommins) enforcing that employment eligibility would have a huge impact on the market for illegal immigration.

But do you understand what enforcing that would entail? What it already entails? Everything we do to "get them" is going to "get" us. It's like airport security - in order to TRY to filter out less than a dozen bad guys, millions of Americans have to go through and enormous amount of hassle, annoyance, and inconvenience, which, in turn, affects how free we really are.

hence this weeks 'sig' line

Freedom does not mean freedom from inconvenience, does it? I am free to fly as long as I am willing to go through airport security. Does it make me less free that it takes time and is a hassle? I have a choice as to if I want to fly.

To drive I need a license and insurance. To leave the country I need a passport and must endure customs. There are many inconveniences that do not make me less free.

Just because I feel like being snide and melodramatic....

The people of Soviet Russia had the choice whether to stand in line for bread or not.

I share many of the same broad stroke problems you have with bush. But I think your forgetting the best thing of all about bush. He is hardline in the exact areas that completely piss off your classic progressive liberal... even if he doses little to nothing policy wise it's not caring about their pet issue that seems to drive them particularly nuts and be the real travesty to them.

Any moonbats please feel free to add to why else you hate him so so very much (oh you know what on second thought don't I can just go back and read any forum on any topic and cant help but run into more vivid reasons)

Damn you Bush-hitler for being so indifferent to our chi late focused rage, <high-pitched squeaky voice> Damn you</high-pitched squeaky voice> <<shakes fist in air>>

I really need to see that movie. Because if I don't soon, CP is going to come after me.

True, but where would freedom end for you? Routine unannounced searches of your home that presumably would not ever turn up anything (unless you mouthed off) but might at the fellow's house down the street? Police with batons on every street corner telling people to move along? Listening devices to check in on your harmless conversation?

No, but making sure that only authorized people cross a border doesn't seem like an unreasonable pinch point.

Considering the depressing effect that illegal immigration has on pay I'm always amazed that there is more progressive opposition to it.

Amnesty's have been tried all over the world (here previously, most European countries) and all the evidence indicates that they simply promote greater illegal immigration in the future under the belief that if you stay long enough eventually you'll be normalized.

One immigration change that I think should be made is so that citizenship is not granted merely for the coincidence of being born on American soil.

TS - are you a supporter of Bush simply because he pisses off the "classic progressive liberal" ?

You do know you can be Republican, you can hate the Democrats, all without supporting Bush... (I can't stand the card-carrying mentality, on any side of an issue.)

As for me, I've been a Democrat. I've been a Republican. Right now, I'm neither and I think it keeps me from being further disillusioned from the whole process. I don't get to be disgruntled with "my party" when I don't have one. ;)

Oh, and what would you have the requirements be, then?


Directed not solely to Alex, but to all other who have expressed this rather puzzling (to me) opinion.

I would have the requirements be that you are A) born to American citizen or B) adopted by an American citizen or C) have come to the country through the front door and gone through the (admittedly lengthy) process of becoming a citizen.

As far as when freedom would "end"....tough to put an exact line in the sand.

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. Keep the government out of my home, from looking into my home or listening to what is happening in my home (without the appropriate court approved warrants).

In public, they can take my picture, record my voice, video tape me, watch me to their hearts content. I'm in public.

As long as my Constitutional rights are not being violated, I'm cool. I fail to see how stopping illegal immigration or even having a national ID card (assuming I don't have to present it at the whim of a government official) violates those.

Pretty much what scaeagles said.

A pregnant woman comes here on vacation from Ireland with her husband and two other children. She goes into early labor while visiting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and delivers a beautiful boy. Why is that kid an American?

A very late term Russian woman is flying from Novosibirsk to Toronto to visit her sister and goes into labor and delivers on the plane while it is in Alaskan airspace. Why is that kid an American citizen?

You say it is a puzzling concept but the majority of the world does not work under the same system we do. Jus soli (right of soil) is common in the Western Hemisphere but is a byproduct of an earlier era when populations were low. It is something we inherited from the United Kingdom and they it it 25 years ago (you must now be born to a legal resident). India, Ireland, and New Zealand are all countries that used to be on our system but have changed to san sanguinus (right of bloos) so that you are only automatically a citizen if born to at least one citizen parent.

This is by far the standard form of bestowing citizenship (in the United States we are both; if born abroad to American parents you are a citizen, if born domestically to foreign parents you are a citizen).

Here's a list (accumulated through Wikipedia) of various countries and how they handle citizenship by birth. We're pretty much in the oddball camp as far as the world is concerned.

Nations that require being born to a citizen to be a native-born citizen
Australia, Austria, Belarus, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, Morocco (only through the father), Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey

Nations that require being born to a legal resident meeting some requirements to be a native-born citizen
Belgium, France, Malaysia (not based on parental residency but on personal residency of 6 years after birth), Portugal, South Africa, United Kingdom,

Nations that simply require being born on domestic soil to be a native-born citizen
Brazil, Canada, Greece, Lithuania, Peru, South Korea (but only if other citizenships are renounced), United States

Other
Liberian citizenship is only available to black Africans. And native born rights are only passed by birth to a citizen.

Quite a few countries will also allow you to "reclaim" citizenship if you can show a sufficient historical ethnic or national connection.

The national ID card interferes with freedom once you can't leave the house without it. You are then not free to walk the streets without your "papers" very commie/nazi. I fear if we institute a national ID card, it will somehow become mandatory that we have them on our person at all times. And don't try to compare that to a driver's license, because we only need that if we're operating a motor vehicle.

I DO feel less free because of all the hassle they have added to travel. I am not free to just pack a bag, buy a ticket, and step on a plane. I am now told how to pack my bag (eg: liquids in a ziploc bag or don't carry them), I am forced to remove my shoes and let my sweaty socks mingle with the humid impressions of so many hundreds of hot stockinged feet before me as I step through a metal detector, I am checked, and rechecked for my identity, and for good measure, checked again. I now have to arrive 2 hours before a flight to have a chance of making it through security in time for a flight that may last half that time. I do NOT feel free.

I don't even feel free on the net anymore, thanks to the Patriot Act. I think you'll find many Americans who no longer feel free to joke about certain topics lest it trigger some sort of "search" by the FBI, the records of which could hinder future ability to get certain jobs (I've had many jobs that required FBI background checks). No longer free to read certain books even out of curiosity, no longer free to search certain keywords on the internet, etc.

Am I doing anything wrong? No. But fear of being wrongly accused or even of having to go through the process of defending myself for doing nothing wrong restricts my freedoms. I can't satisfy my curiosity about the Anarchists' Cookb0ok (do I have the name right?) for fear of being mistaken for a terrorist.

The forefathers saw this, that's why the wrote the constitution, and it stood for freedom until big-brother (sorry, big-government) politicians decided to undermine it in a big power grab, aided by fearful peasants.

I assume you don't want to be randomly stopped and frisked for weapons in the public square.

As for the government not looking into your home, if they're on the street, they can look into your home and listen to what's happening in there. In the war on drugs, fly-overs and various forms of infrared, heat seeking and satellite surveillance have been approved. The reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes as the technology advances and one is able to say that what once was private is actually open to public reception.

Of course they can. They can do a lot of stuff that they don't necessarily do.

I would extend my earlier public/private to include my person. My person is private unless there is probable cuase to determine otherwise.

And I agree, Morrigoon - I'm not wanting to carry my "papers" at all times.

However, do you have a "right" to fly? Is it worth enough to you to fly to go through the added security? Apparently so. How did this impose upon your freedom to go where you wanted? Were you told you coudn't go or delayed?

Too many people confuse inconvenience with restriction of freedoms.

And to add to the flying issue: there are other forms of transportation (train, bus, automobile, etc.).

Too often we confuse "rights" with "privileges." Flying is a privilege. Driving is a privilege. Feeling safe in your home is a right. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a right. Security checks for flights is not an unreasonable search.

I just read something i found to be humorous from a column by Thomas Sowell -

you ask good questions. what do you suggest or envision? Certainly not a wide open border or open citizenship to anyone who sets foot. I'll be the first to say theres no easy solution or any solution that pleases everyone, but I take exception to periodically granting amnesty to everyone lucky enough to be here on payday.

what is it you find so puzzling?

Have you ever heard of the No-Fly List? Are you aware that it's absurdly easy to be almost arbitrarily put on this List, and next to impossible to get yourself off?

The draconian measures you seem to view as at least a crease in the sand are happenening.

Perhaps on a smaller scale than a police state, but they've begun nonetheless. And the people who put them in place, and many who would come into power after them, would not stop at requiring you to have your papers on you at all times.


(And far worse, I'm afraid)

Perhaps I am suffering from the frog in the kettle syndrome. Goodness knows most of society is in areas from smoking bans to speech codes.

We all have those things we are most concerned about. I listed those two because of issues of private property rights and freedom of speech where I feel the temperature of the water rise with every degree.

I'm with Kevy Baby on rights vs privileges.

Oh, and see ... I completely disagree about rights and privileges. I don't believe rights are absolute, but neither are things like driving or flying "privileges."

Cars exist. If I can demonstrate an ability to drive one safely, I have a right to drive one. A government should deny me a license based on my lack of driving proficiency, not - say - on the color of my skin or my political activities.

Similarly, the "right" to fly. It's a service available in the common marketplace. United Airlines has the right to deny me, but the U.S. government does not. I also have the right to shop at Vons. The right to use a cell phone. The right to do all sorts of things that don't harm others. That's called freedom. And it's not limited to things specifically mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution.

I completely agree. The rights listed in the Constitution are not a specific enumeration of all rights that exist.

And I can see your point on the government denying someone the "right" to fly vs. a private entity refusing service to you. With that in mind, there was the recent story of a group of Imams that were flying on some airline, and several passengers were nervous because the men had been supposedly uttering antiAmerican phrases during boarding (or some such thing - I don't exactly recall the details). Did that airline act withint their rights as a private entity in removing those men from the flight? Or should their lawsuit be permitted to procede because of discrimination?

With what you have said about rights....you are a gun control supporter if I recall. If I own a fully automatic weapon, how has that harmed anyone? Even if the right to bear arms was just directed at a well regulated militia (and I do not subscribe to that interpretation), do I not have the right to own that fully automatic weapon? I haven't harmed anyone in the simple ownership, yet it has been deemed by society that I cannot have it. We can go through all the arguments of "what do you need that for, blah, blah, blah", but the point remains.

Certain limitations have been placed on individual rights for the (supposed) benefit to society. Insert the law you most disagree with here, whether that is drug usage or prostitution orr selling ones body parts.

I don't see a no fly list as different than any of those other things....something that society has deemed acceptable even though it is a curtailing of what an individual can do at any specific time.

Back to immigration, it seems to me the drivers are economic. In poorer countries there is a need for jobs, in richer countries there is a need for cheap labor. Either we find a way to bring in cheap labor (who maybe have a path to becoming part of the middle class citizenry) or we export the jobs. If we're strict on both then it seems we ultimately solve our immigration problem by sabotaging our own economy and becoming poorer and less desirable a destination.

:) Very good point. I suppose we should not worry too much about this problem unti it ceases to become a problem:)

Except that the work that the illegals do is legal necessary work. The majority of abused drugs can't be sold by pharmacists even with a prescription. I suppose if recreational drugs were ever legalized, there would still be a street trade devoted to undercutting the prices passed down by the drug companies to the pharmacists. Then you'd hear the drug companies complain about the street dealers the way the white and black working class complain about the Latinos.

So says the Ninth Amendment, but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever tried to figure out what that means.

When are we having a Strangler Lewis meet?

More to the point, not everyone who is working illegally is in the country illegally.

We all disagree with various rulings of the Supreme Court. I would guess (though I cannot be certain) that you may be a proponent of certain decisions that place limitations on various listed Constitutional protections as well as non-specific. I really do not propose to know for sure. Even the staunchest civil libertarians might support smoking bans on private property or campaign finance laws.

All I know is that the second amendment says I can have firearms, but there are laws restricting that freedom. I know the first amendment says I can say what I want, but there are laws on the books that prohibit ads critical of elected officials 60 days prior to an election.

Umm...Strangler....it was meant to be humorous not literal. That's why I said I found it to be humorous.

And I respectfully disagree that it is the white and black working class complaining about the Latinos. A large portion of hispanics that are here legally have problems with hispanic illegals. And while hispanics no doubt represent the vast majority, the objection is to illegal immigration from anywhere regardless of race.

The biggest opponent of illegal immigration was a hispanic labor organizer that is honored here in AZ named Cesar Chavez. He understood that every illegal immigrant working here drove down the wages for those that were here legally, and he encouraged those he organized to turn in the illegals and have them deported.

If you support the idea of non-specific constitutional protections, you're more liberal than I thought.

Is there a level of destructive power, the possession of which you would think could be prohibited?

The First Amendment has been interpreted to permit reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Everyone can't parade down the street at the same time or block the steps to City Hall. The law you describe sounds like it goes beyond that and restricts content.

This is bordering on an argument in semantics. Take driving for an example:

To one, driving is a privilege bestowed because you've proven yourself to be a good driver. To another, driving is a right because you've proven yourself to be a good driver.

Humm...

It's funny, I should have a stronger opinion on the topic of immigration, but I just don't.

I hate when the words "right" and "privilege" are bandied about as axioms. The idea that every person has an equal right to anything at all is a very young creation of modern times. We only have rights because we decided we did. Same goes for "privilege", as well.

Um, no CP ... with all due respect, you've got that completely backwards. Humans are endowed with inalienable rights by nature ... and we have only been denied them on a vast scale until modern times in modern places.

The problem with this, whether I think there is a level or not, is that there are thousands (millions?) of differing opinions as to what could (or should) be prohibited. This doesn't just go for firearms, but for any right, enumerated or not.

Even as a non smoker it fries me that private property owners can't allow smoking on their property. A majority clearly believes this ban is OK.

So we come down to a line where society determines, whether through the courts, passage of laws, or a popular vote, as to where the right to whatever should begin and end.

In regards to firearms, I see no reason as to why someone should need a fully automatic firearm. Someone else may have what they believe to be a valid reason. Therefore, why not just allow the possession and prosecute any crime that comes as a result of that possession? Same with drugs. Why is it that someone can't shoot heroin if they so choose? As long as they pay for their own healthcare and don't commit crimes to gain that heroin, then what harm has come?

Same with smoking, fatty food, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, prostitution, selling my left kidney or cornea, and whatever other kind of law there may be. If I'm willing to take the responsibility for my actions, I should pretty much be able to do what I want. The problem? No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It isn't the fault of the smoker for getting lung cancer, it's those tricky tobacco companies.

However....society has deemed that certain things are harmful to society and are therefore disallowed. I have my issues that bug me, you have yours, as does everyone. Debates such as this will rage for eternity because there will never be agreement as to what should be allowed or restricted in the name of freedom.

The example of alcohol and cigarettes (our two widely available legal drugs) would seem to argue against this.

While there is a certain black market for these products it is minimal and rather than attempting to undercut the manufacturer it is almost entirely focused on avoiding the taxes.

Make sense?

I like condensation.

Not me- it makes my hair frizzy.

HA! NOT dry humor. ;)

Even if I took full responsibilty for my unintentional spelling error You guys would still suck. :p

Part B, yes.

As for Part A, I asked it because of a previous comment of yours:

It reads something like "I support Bush, despite not liking a lot of things about him, only because he pisses of So-And-So."

Thus, is your support of Bush (which has little, IMO, with being a Republican, as I know more than a few Republicans that aren't happy with Bush) simply because he pisses off the "classic progressive liberal" ?

You subjectively added ONLY and SIMPLY. :coffee:

Touche, but the essence of the question (or rather, the implied question, or what people would rebut, add to, or further define) remains:

Why do you like Bush (other than your previously mentioned reason)?

"Only" and "simply" are there, because, simply put, it's the only reason you've given.

Wow, snappy and witty but you can take off your debate club jacket... I already got razzed for an honest spelling mistake <which at the same time angers and amuses me>. I am not in the mood for other reasons which i'm sure you can understand.

The whole amnesty bill (that isn't amnesty, but really is) is a farce. The whiplash that the Dems are exhibiting with the latest war spending bill is also farcical. I now declare myself an Independent. I'm done with the two-party system.

I'm there as well. I am so friggen sick of our two party system that even though it may be a throwaway, I am seriously considering voting Independent. (If I can find a candidate there that I like).

Out of curiosity, in what way do you see a proportional representation system changing the balance on this issue?

I'm busy being reactionary, so **** off.













(There's an Alex winkie/smilie there, which I know only you can see, so I wanted to point that out for the ones who can't).

Anarchy Now!

If things keep on as they are, that may come to pass.

Might be fun.

While I still am not happy with the Republicans, at least the stupid amnesty bill is dead. Dead. At least for the year.

Immigration bill fails on a vote to end debate