Dick Durbin vs the Constitution

[Upchurch]

Funny how leftists cry *he's only human* when one of their own makes a MAJOR flub, but doesn't give ... say ... Michael Bachman the same leeway when she makes a minor one. And that's but one of many examples of the doublestandard that leftists seem to have. No, U, I'm only applying the same standard that you on the left have applied to conservatives who ... *misspeak*.

Not even close. You applied the same consequences, not the same standard that lead to that consequence. Durbin's flub was not major. It was one sentence fragment of rhetoric common to the American Dream. Not a complete rewriting of history and/or reality on multiple occasions. You have no reason to believe that it was anything more than a slip of the tongue or that he has any intention of modifying the Constitution, as you implied.

Again, you are obfuscating real issues with right-wing conspiracy theory paranoia.

 

[SezMe]

Funny how leftists cry *he's only human* when one of their own makes a MAJOR flub, ...

This is good progress, BAC. You now acknowledge that it was just a flub, not the inadvertent revelation of an insidious plot to install an illegal as President. Now all we have to do is work on the "MAJOR" part then we can close the thread with brief discussion of why Durbin can't carry Bachmann's jock strap when it comes to the flub department. Ok, maybe sports bra or whatever the equivalent is.

 

[BeAChooser]

They're all potential voters, and the last president to grant illegal aliens amnesty was Reagan.

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 .

 

[bikerdruid]

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

An adequately designed fence/wall system …

maybe one of those would work for us too.
canada is literally awash in americans and it does horrible things to neighbourhood property values.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

I still don't understand why you wish to put a stop to federal enforcement policy that has resulted in record levels of enforcements (deportations and removals) while balancing a number of other legitimate federal interests that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

And in case you haven't noticed, there's a pretty broad based movement to reduce federal spending, not increase it dramatically. A functional fence around the U.S. would be quite expensive.

 

[BeAChooser]

A functional fence around the U.S. would be quite expensive.

Not compared to the cost that illegals impose on the country. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Biscuit]

Hey A great wall kept the mongols out of China!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not compared to the cost that illegals impose on the country. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that.

Because it's not true.

But my statement that the federal immigration policy you are opposed to has resulted in record levels of enforcements is true.

So even though you made a parallel sentence, your comment is unlike mine.

 

[Biscuit]

Not compared to the cost that illegals impose on the country. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that.

Is this the part of thread were you ignore anything related to your hopelessly flawed OP and derail?

 

[Dancing David]

Seriously, DD, you think Dick Durbin is "conservative" and a "warhawk"?

Do you seriously think a conservative has made it into the #2 leadership position of Senate democrats?

No, the truth is that Durbin is one of the most liberal members of Congress. Which is why he was given the position of Whip.

Consider these facts:

His Liberal Action Score places him at having participated in 88% of a of liberal actions in the 112th Congress.

His comparable Conservative Action Score is only 13%.

Who made the scale?

is it fiscal conservatism or homophobic intrude in the bedroom conservatism?

He gets a 100% rating from Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood groups and a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

He's one of only 23 senators to vote against the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War.

He gets an 82% rating from the ACLU.

He wants the "Fairness Doctrine" imposed, highly leftist legislation.

The Sierra Club gives him a 90% rating on environmental issues.

The NAACP gives him a 100% rating.

The National Education Association of America gives him an A rating.

The National Rifle Association gives him an F rating.

The AFL-CIO gives him a rating of 100% rating. SEIU gives him a 91% rating.

The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law gives him an A+ rating.

The Cato Institute gives him a rating of 17%.

Christian Coalition gives him a rating of 0%.

In fact, here's a source that currently ranks him the 10th most liberal senator out of 50. The National Journal voted him the most liberal member of the Senate in 2006.

Seriously, DD, what have you been smoking?

Maybe you should pay attention to his re-elections, most Illinois voters are conservatives, Durbin runs well in downstate and conservative districts. Why is that BAC? Do you think that every one like you engages in black and white extremist thinking. So the AFL-CIO supports him, you are the one who thinks everyone must be a clone and think and act just like you to get your approval.

Maybe you should give up your monomania. The world is more than black and white and extreme, "Agree with me or be a commie" sort of thinking.

You may not like it but I know lots and lots of Republicans, some of them are even school employees and union members. Some are small town life long Republicans, and crazy about the second amendment. They even thought Sarah Palin was cool, but guess who they voted for, Dick Durbin. And these are not Republicans in name only, one of them even voted against FDR and Truman, another made his son and daughter members of the NRA on the day they were born. But they still vote for Durbin. (And they still vote all the time for Republicans in every other office from dog catcher to Governor, they sure don't like Quinn or Obama)

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Not compared to the cost that illegals impose on the country. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that.

Because it's not true.

Yes, it is true, as I've shown in post after post on that thread I linked. Which you strangely enough avoided.

For example, here are some posts you could have challenged:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6101172&postcount=84

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6103440&postcount=101

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6109967&postcount=114

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6807092&postcount=138

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6859739&postcount=206

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6860266&postcount=216

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6860902&postcount=219

In those post I clearly prove that illegal immigration is costing us well over $100 billion every single year … and growing. Even at $20 million per mile (which is much higher than current estimates for a good system), a fence/wall system like I described in that thread would be a great deal because that would total only $40 billion to fence the entire southern border. And solve at least 90% of a problem that has grown to costing us about three times that amount every single year.

 

[BeAChooser]

most Illinois voters are conservatives

LOL! Even leftist NBC recognizes that "Illinois is America's Most Liberal State" (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Why-Illinois-Is-Americas-Most-Liberal-State-121386749.html ).

Durbin runs well in downstate and conservative districts.

And as pointed out in the above link

Because no other state is so thoroughly dominated, politically, by a big city. New York City makes up a larger percentage of New York state than Chicago does of Illinois. But New York is composed of five counties, each with their own political machine. Chicago is part of Cook County, the overwhelmingly Democratic entity which contains half the population of Illinois.

As any frustrated Downstate conservative will tell you, whatever Cook County wants, Cook County gets. The governor, the speaker of the House and the Senate president are all from Cook County.

 

[cwalner]

Seriously, DD, you think Dick Durbin is "conservative" and a "warhawk"?

Do you seriously think a conservative has made it into the #2 leadership position of Senate democrats?

No, the truth is that Durbin is one of the most liberal members of Congress. Which is why he was given the position of Whip.

Consider these facts:

His Liberal Action Score places him at having participated in 88% of a of liberal actions in the 112th Congress.

His comparable Conservative Action Score is only 13%.

He gets a 100% rating from Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood groups and a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.
He's one of only 23 senators to vote against the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War.
He gets an 82% rating from the ACLU.

He wants the "Fairness Doctrine" imposed, highly leftist legislation.

The Sierra Club gives him a 90% rating on environmental issues.

The NAACP gives him a 100% rating.

The National Education Association of America gives him an A rating.

The National Rifle Association gives him an F rating.

The AFL-CIO gives him a rating of 100% rating. SEIU gives him a 91% rating.

The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law gives him an A+ rating.

The Cato Institute gives him a rating of 17%.

Christian Coalition gives him a rating of 0%.

In fact, here's a source that currently ranks him the 10th most liberal senator out of 50. The National Journal voted him the most liberal member of the Senate in 2006.

Seriously, DD, what have you been smoking?

Hey, I like this game of highlighting the negatives that we actually think are positives, here's my entry.

I like the NAACP one especially. In BaC world, if the darkies like you, you must be a librul.

 

[NotJesus]

LOL! Even leftist NBC recognizes that "Illinois is America's Most Liberal State" (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Why-Illinois-Is-Americas-Most-Liberal-State-121386749.html ).

This fails to refute David's point. The linked article calls it the most liberal state because Chicago dominates the state legislature, not because most voters in the state are liberals. They are not.

 

[SezMe]

Is this the part of thread were you ignore anything related to your hopelessly flawed OP and derail?

...thereby demonstrating that Biscuit is a careful reader of BAC's threads.

 

[BeAChooser]

The linked article calls it the most liberal state because Chicago dominates the state legislature, not because most voters in the state are liberals. They are not.

You don't know what you are talking about.

For example:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

March 20, 2008

… snip …

Democrats continue to hold sizable leads in traditional Democratic strongholds. In the four most populous blue states -- New York, New Jersey, California and Illinois -- Democrats enjoy a double-digit advantage in party identification.

… snip … In California and Illinois, the balance of party identification has remained largely unchanged, with Democrats holding roughly a 10-point edge.

And here's another source:

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.

 

[cwalner]

You don't know what you are talking about.

For example:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans




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.

Except for one minor flaw in that argument. Democrat != Liberal. Especially in Illinois, where there is a very strong democratic political machine.

 

[NotJesus]

Except for one minor flaw in that argument. Democrat != Liberal. Especially in Illinois, where there is a very strong democratic political machine.

1. True.

2. It makes no difference to BAC's failure to refute Dancing David's point, since his NBC link was not talking about the composition of the Illinois electorate.

3. If we were to accept Democrat = Liberal, and accept the numbers of the (3-year-old) Pew poll as accurate, it would seem that New York and New Jersey are even more liberal than "America's most liberal state."

 

[hgc]

No, I imagine if ANYTHING comes of it, the ammendment would strike the "natural born" clause out, and replace it with naturalized.

Mountains out of molehills.

Oh, so only illegal aliens could become president. Why do you hate America?

 

[BenBurch]

Doesn't matter, BAC, Many Republicans voted for him. Are they all subversives?