• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dick Durbin vs the Constitution

Um, BAC, if you can read or choose to I think you need to look at the phrase "most Illinois voters are conservatives, Durbin runs well in downstate and conservative districts." just because you have religious political monomania that views all Democrats as liberals, does not make it so.

I know that you are blinded by the mistaken religion of politics that you engage in and I know that everything you post in Politics is tainted by it.

Your need to be an extreme to almost the point of parody is apparent in your posts. Again democrat by definition does not mean liberal. Gosh there are even Democrats who don't support abortion, oppose gay marriage and cross over to vote Republican.

Also you apparently do not understand what the state is like outside of Chicago or even in the collar counties. Mostly conservative, downstate conservative Republican, some areas of the collar counties conservative Republican and conservative Democrats.

But I know that your religious beliefs and obligations prevent you from engaging in discussion and that your god requires you to state things in terms of hyperbole and rhetoric.

So why is the NAACP on your smear Durbin as a liberal hitlist?

Is the NAACP a liberal organization? Really?
 
cwalner said:
Except for one minor flaw in that argument. Democrat != Liberal.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, folks.

Liberals, democrats, socialists, communists, leftists, progressives all trying to redefine themselves once the public starts to wise up to what they really are.

Modern day democrats not Liberal? You have to be joking. Or delusional. LOL!
 
BeAChooser said:
Here we go again, folks.

Liberals, democrats, socialists, communists, leftists, progressives all trying to redefine themselves once the public starts to wise up to what they really are.
Click to expand...

No. Your inability to distinguish between liberals, Democrats, socialists, communists, etc. does not make them all the same thing. This has been explained to you many times. You ought to be embarassed to persist in such willful ignorance.
 
Dancing David said:
Is the NAACP a liberal organization? Really?
Click to expand...

LOL! Surely you jest AGAIN, DD?

Like Lt Colonel Allen West noted (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/...onel-allen-west-naacp-and-liberal-racism.html ), where was the NAACP when Harry Reid said President Obama was likeable because he is “light-skinned” and did not speak in “negro dialect”. Silent. The NAACP was also silent when Joe Biden referred to Barack Hussein Obama as “clean and articulate”. In contrast, the NAACP said nothing when liberals attacked Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele,General Colin Powell and many other conservative blacks. But woe be it to the conservative that says anything that might be interpreted as negative about a black liberal. The NAACP is all over them, calling them racists at the drop of a hat.

No, there's a clear double standard there which has nothing to do with color of skin but a lot to do with the political persuasion of the target.

Did the NAACP denounce the obvious case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party? No. Did the NAACP demand President Bush, and later the Obama adminstration, prosecute the case? No. Did the NAACP distance itself from and condemn Malik Shabazz and the New Black Panther Party? No.

When black Kenneth Gladney was attacked by SEIU members and called the "N" word, did the NAACP step in to defend him? No, they stepped in to defend his attackers, even inviting them to speak at NAACP gatherings where they received much applause.

And what forum was Shirley Sherrod speaking at when she voiced her racist sentiments? Why an NAACP meeting, of course. And what was the audience's reaction to what she said? Laughter, when she told the audience that she discriminated against a white farmer and didn't do everything she could for him.

Julian Bond, who was Chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2010, clearly stated "we want [the NAACP] to be a social justice organization". That's not something a conservative organization would announce. Even back in 1998 "social justice" was a liberal/leftist/socialist code word.

So yes, DD, "really". :D
 
NotJesus said:
Which happens to be correct. Let us know when you figure it out.
Click to expand...

USpercentagesbystate.png


:D
 
BeAChooser said:
Adding votes does have a lot to do with democrat motivations now. :)

But I'm not so sure that was Reagan's motivation back in 1986. Just look at the title of the law that Reagan signed: the "Immigration Reform and Control Act". The law required employers attest to their employees' immigration status and made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit an illegal. The theory was that criminalizing the act and adding harsh penalties against offenders would reduce illegal immigration. It was a clear attempt to get control of the situation and reduce illegal immigration. That's not the theory behind the Dream Act. Not at all.

And as far as the 1986 law goes, that theory probably would have proven correct ... had the law been properly enforced. But for the most part it was not. So illegals continued to flow into the country by the million and millions. The number went from only 3 million in 1986 to 11 million a decade later. And the reason is simple: if you don't enforce the control aspects of these laws, then the message you send by granting amnesty is that if you come to this country illegally and stay here long enough, we will let you stay permanently. We will grant you full citizenship.

Now I truly believe that Reagan hoped that these people that he noted "hide in the shadows" would "choose" to become "Americans". I don't think he remotely envisioned the situation we now have ... with the immigration control aspects of the law being ignored, with illegals literally standing up in the halls of Congress to voice demands on the rest of us, with the US government handing out billions and billions of dollars each year in welfare to illegals, with illegals and their progeny altering the very fabric of "American" society (just look at the recent victory celebration at the Rose Bowl, as an example ... it was conducted in Spanish).

The truth is that Reagan's amnesty was a disaster. Do we really need to keep going down that road? Because you and I both know that the Dream Act will just lead to yet another "anmesty" in a few years. It will solve NOTHING.

It is time to put a stop to this by the only means which will work.

An adequately designed fence/wall system … a topic we can discuss here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178495 . :D
Click to expand...

I'll make a prediction here:

There will never be a national effort in the United States to truely control illegal immigration.

There is too much economic and political incentive across the board for the government to take direct action against illegals.

Even aside from the larger issues involved, action undertaken to secure illegals and deport same is widely viewed as being "mean" and unfair.

How low can things go? meet my late friend and his sons, Tony Bologna:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06-24/news/17162197_1_eldest-son-youngest-son-teenage-son

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06-...th-penalty-officer-isaac-espinoza-gang-member

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Ramos

I knew Tony through work, and he worked right around the corner from where I live.

Good man and his two sons dead because San Francisco saw fit to protect illegal aliens, even ones convicted of violent crimes.

Rant mode: OFF
 
BStrong said:
There will never be a national effort in the United States to truely [sic] control illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


Your prediction has already failed. Current federal enforcement policy which focuses on criminal illegal aliens (especially violent criminals) and balances enforcement against several other national interests has resulted in record levels of enforcements including record levels of deportations and removals and most recently increased worksite audits and inspections.

I suppose by "truely" you mean simply to your liking, or possibly one that ignores all other national interests except for enforcement.

ETA:
There is too much economic and political incentive across the board for the government to take direct action against illegals.
Click to expand...
But you don't count deportations and removals as direct action against illegals? Or are you just ignorant of these all time record breaking stats?
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
And here's another source:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/USpercentagesbystate.png[/qimg]

It shows the percent advantage that one party has over another in each state. Now take a close look at the color in Illinois and the percentage.

:D
Click to expand...

bac...if your map were accurate, there would not be a democrat in the white house.:D:D:D
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Your prediction has already failed. Current federal enforcement policy which focuses on criminal illegal aliens (especially violent criminals) and balances enforcement against several other national interests has resulted in record levels of enforcements including record levels of deportations and removals and most recently increased worksite audits and inspections.

I suppose by "truely" you mean simply to your liking, or possibly one that ignores all other national interests except for enforcement.

ETA:

But you don't count deportations and removals as direct action against illegals? Or are you just ignorant of these all time record breaking stats?
Click to expand...

I'm very well aware of the national multi-agency effort - Operation Return to Sender:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Return_to_Sender

Every local paper and news outlet carried unfavorable stories wrt the operation and the poor folks impacted - ignoring the bad actors with multiple warrants and bail jumpers to focus on the "families torn apart" etc.

Several local agencies refused to co-operate.

You're correct in pointing out that the arrest numbers have gone up - and many illegals in California have gone back home as well due to the poor economy.

What hasn't changed is the deliberate blind eye of many agencies and municipalities to the increasing numbers of illegals coming here.

Case in point:

http://www.samaritanhouse.com/new/programs/worker_resources.shtml

Want the real story?

The worker's resource center was intended to provide a location for "workers"
to congregate without causing problems for local businesses.

The original agreement was that the workers would only congregate at that location, and a city ordinance was passed making loitering for work illegal in any other location...which, after the center was opened and the ordinance enacted, the workers decided they didn't like the location, and when the local police enforced the no loitering regulation the local and national "workers" advocacy groups jumped right on the city, which immediately backed off...

When I mean "truely" I mean a policy where any illegal alien encountered as anything other than a victim of violent crime isimmediately taken into custody and deported - not the current system in California where depending on locality, an illegal alien isn't even held accountable for illegal firearms possession.
 
BeAChooser said:
Here we go again, folks.

Liberals, democrats, socialists, communists, leftists, progressives all trying to redefine themselves once the public starts to wise up to what they really are.

Modern day democrats not Liberal? You have to be joking. Or delusional. LOL!
Click to expand...

Ooh, I can play this game too.

Conservatives, Republicans, fascists, nazis, racists, reactionaries all trying to redefine themselves once the public starts to wise up to what they really are.

Modern day republicans (like RINOs) not conservative? you have to be joking. Or delusional. LOL!

Hey, that was fun! Thanks for teaching me a new game BaC.
 
cwalner said:
Ooh, I can play this game too.

Conservatives, Republicans, fascists, nazis, racists, reactionaries all trying to redefine themselves once the public starts to wise up to what they really are.

Modern day republicans (like RINOs) not conservative? you have to be joking. Or delusional. LOL!

Hey, that was fun! Thanks for teaching me a new game BaC.
Click to expand...
:D
 
BStrong said:
You're correct in pointing out that the arrest numbers have gone up - and many illegals in California have gone back home as well due to the poor economy.
Click to expand...

So is this your admission that your earlier comments, all based on the assumption that the federal government does not enforce immigration laws and that there is no "direct action against illegals" was completely wrong?

What hasn't changed is the deliberate blind eye of many agencies and municipalities to the increasing numbers of illegals coming here.
Click to expand...
Again, the federal government has to balance a number of interests other than simply enforcements in establishing its uniform national immigration enforcement policy. I don't think it's fair to claim they're turning a blind eye to anything. As with all criminal law enforcement, authorities have a lot of discretion in which cases they choose to prosecute. (Does it bother you that we don't bust absolutely every person who speeds?)

I think the negative impact of non-criminal illegal aliens is, at the very least, grossly exaggerated. And further I think it hypocritical of people who are largely in favor of drastic federal spending cuts primarily based on "small government" ideology favor spending virtually limitless resources to ferret out innocuous, even non-criminal, offenders.

ETA:
When I mean "truely" I mean a policy where any illegal alien encountered as anything other than a victim of violent crime isimmediately taken into custody and deported
Click to expand...
And do you favor funding this program by more federal debt or by raising taxes? Or would you like to take federal resources away from the current successful enforcement policy that concentrates on removing violent criminal illegal aliens? (You do recognize that states do not have the constitutional authority to deport anyone?)
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
not the current system in California where depending on locality, an illegal alien isn't even held accountable for illegal firearms possession.
Click to expand...

Thats one heck of a claim! Care to back that up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom