I have to tell you. Obama is starting to get on my nerves. First, he gives kudos for New Ideas to Reagan, then he bashed the former President for calling him on it.
Let me say, up to now, I have been totally nuetral between Hillary and Obama. I, like most Democrats, are comfortable with either "people selected" candidate that wins the primaries and is selected, by the people, as an electable candidate.
I have personally written both candidates and asked them to stop bashing each other! Please! There is far too much at stake and there is far too much of this bashing going on. The bottom line is, we Democrats MUST WIN THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER and for this bashing to go on is inexcusible!
To date, the only person who has gone beyond the pale is Obama. Come on! Promoting Reagan is inexcusible! I like his son and Nancy. They are both good people. I am sure Ronnie was a good parent. As far as President, he, like Bush, allowed the Neocons to run the show to all of our detriment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Have no worries, the Dems will win the election, it's money in the bag, question at this point is, which one?
This article is just a reminder that what we in the USA are facing is nothing that unique - there are millions of people about to rush the gates of europe as well
Muammar al-Gaddafi's Wily Revenge
by Dymphna
This news from The Guardian:
Up to a million migrants have gathered in Libya, from where they will attempt to sail across the Mediterranean for Europe and, ultimately, the UK.
New estimates reveal that there are two million migrants massed in the North African country and that half of them plan to sail to the European mainland and travel on to Britain in the hope of building a new life.
According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), most have travelled from sub-Saharan states such as Ghana and Sierra Leone, attracted by Libya’s reputation as a centre for people smugglers. Most are expected to wait until the spring, when the seas are calmer, before making the crossing on unseaworthy and crowded vessels.
European border authorities have opened negotiations to police Libya’s vast desert borders. Last week, the Italian government struck a deal with Libya to hold back the thousands who try to reach Italy.
[..]
…European leaders tried to reach an agreement with Libya, a country that until recently was named by Britain as a state sponsor of terrorism. Of the thousands of African boat people who enter Italy each year, about 80 per cent are believed to make their way to France or the UK, with the latter their preferred destination.
The risks, however, are great. Researchers for the programme managed to track down a number of those seen in last year’s startling images of refugees clinging to a vast tuna net cast loose on the Mediterranean.
if the 20 million undocumented (or is it 25 million?) are made citizens, and then once they are citizens millions more push through the border, what is to be done with the millions and millions of people rushing in to the USA?
Should they be put in prison? What about the hundreds of thousands of children among them? How about some straight talk from both sides as to what should happen ? This is the wave of the future, millions upon millions of undocumented will come in to the USA no matter what
how do we deal with them
specifics please !
Reagan started it with his blanket amnesty in 1986 and the democrats will do it again! The future history books will talk about a USA that used to be. I am glad I
won't be alive to see what this country turms into.
Actually Obama had it right. The Democrats themselves admitted when the Republicans were in office that they had a shortage of ideas, something there was no shortage of in the GOP. Many Democratic leaders have called for ideas to match those advanced by the GOP that swept them into office.
It is rather sad when one has to take the position that no one in the opposing party has or ever had for that matter a good idea. After all weren't there a few Democrats that were cheering the president on regarding CIR. Aren't the Dem no talking tax breaks? Now where did that idea come from -- the GOP.
There is nothing wrong with admitting the other party had some good ideas. It demonstrates a sort of statesmanship that will be needed to enable bipartisan legislation. It is indeed unfortunate that Hillary tried to make a negative thing out of this.
Anon is right about one thing, if the Dem get into power, and he's sure they will, they will invoke another amnesty with the same results as the Reagan amnesty, millions more will stream across our borders and through our ports. Some will do us grave damage. Others will simply bankrupt the nation with their demands on services and welfare they cannot support with their tax dollars.
These millions will clog our highways and jam our city streets. They will pollute as they did in their homelands and make it impossible for us to stave off environmental disaster.
They will soak up the remnants of our declining natural resources -- petroleum, timber, water, arable land, coal, and other minerals. They will demand more electrical power.
They will crowd our cities until they are no longer recognizable as American cities. They will look like the UN without the interpreters.
They will double our population before the end of this century and carry us into the next with the potential for a population like China or India. Then our people can work like coolies or slaves to try to scratch out a living.
And who will be to blame for all of this -- American citizens of all colors who choose to support their foreign brethren rather than help preserve the country they profess to love and serve.
The Muslim threat is a real one of a repressive religious nature. They take the really long view and think in terms of a Muslim world in 200 to 500 years or longer. They don't care as long as it the change is inexorable.
The immigrant threat in other dimensions is not a repressive religious threat, although some would argue that historically Catholics have been repressive -- enslaving the Indians, the Inquisition, etc. But mostly that threat is a different kind of threat -- and economic threat to our quality of life and standard of living through sheer numbers, and a cultural threat that could engulf the entire idea of Western Civilization and destroy it as it has been destroyed in much of Mexico,if it ever existed there.
Like Anon, I will not be here to witness this but I remain firmly convinced that this prognostication couldn't be more accurate in the long run. Our citizens are too complacent and too imbued with Christian values to be able to see that they are their own undoing.
Goodbye America! Welcome to Mexico Norte! And then welcome to Islam.
Anon asks, "What is to be done with the millions upon millions waiting for the opportunity to invade our country?"
I have answered that question many times. All citizens must rise in anger and tell our government enough is enough! The most draconian measures are required now to prevent this catastrophe. We must seal the borders and the ports and move quickly to expel all illegals here now and who somehow manage to penetrate the border later. This expulsion is essential to any attempt to secure the borders. If anyone thinks they can come and stay with impunity, they will continue to come from all over the world. If we show we are serious by rapid systematic apprehension, detention and deportation and by jail time for repeat offenders, that will do more for border security than all of the infrastructure improvements and staffing increases we can afford. The attraction can be further reduced by declaring offspring of illegal aliens born here are citizens of their parents' country not the U.S.. Draconian, yes, necessary indubitably.
This idea does not overlook the obvious that there are some jobs that we would like to see performed by temporary migrant laborer who are willing to come for six months and then return to their homelands. Nor does it overlook the possibility that some other workers might be needed. However, in the latter case let's put our best minds to work to find ways to stabilize our population while achieving a soft landing for our economy and while preserving the America we know and love.
Reduce legal immigration to no more than 200,000, expel illegals, fine and imprison employers who hire illegals and government officials who fail to enforce the law or look the other way.
Strong medicine? You bet. How much is your country worth to you?
The Clinton machine will do anything to gain the presidency. They are to be feared. If you doubt that, look at the people left in their wake, thankfully most of them still alive.
I am still studying the "back and forth" between Hillary and Obama. Obama seems to be taken by surprise by the Hillary and Bill´s responses. I hesitate to call them attacks because they are softballs compared to what he will receive from the Republicans if he is the Dem candidate. Checking out the ANTI sites, they are loaded with shots against Obama, including:
. Calling him the Manchurian Candidate (a Muslim puppet)
. Attacks on his church
. Attacks on his middle name (Hussein)
. Attacks against his voting record
(much worse than what HRC is saying.
. Attacks on his Patriotism (not saluting)
I heard Pat Buchanan say a month ago he hoped the Dems do select Obama because they have plenty of dirt on him.
I hate all of this pummeling between the two candidates because I know the Republicans are all laughing about this and only hurts our party.
In the end, I don´t think their arguing is going to be remembered or hurt Hillary that much. It will only hurt Obama because his comments will be viewed as negative against Dems.
Why would you bash Reagan, dee? He granted your precious illegal aliens amnesty in 1986.
This is nothing new in politics with Obama and Hillary going after each other. The Republicans are doing the same thing and once a candidate is picked for each party the bashing will continue between the two candidates selected. Have you been living under a rock for 50 years?
Dee
i very much respect what you are saying. just help me think it through.
OK - so let's say that a million people overstay their tourist visas and move in with their relativs that are us citizens
we know they have overstayed due to this great id plan you put in place
how do you get the million people out - do you have the police visit the house of their relatives looking for them?
do you put the relatives that hide them in jail ? i mean the relatives are us citizens - do you put us citizens in jail for hiding their relatives who are not us citizens
dee be specific, since i don't understand exactly what you would do with millions and millions of people who come in on tourist visas and then just hide out with relatives
January 23, 2008 4:27 PM
Pat,
I remember the 80´s. I don´t recall all these kudos bestowed on Reagan. The media portrayed him as a senile, silly old man serving as a puppet for the neocons. Don´t you recall?
It has only been recently that he has been thought of fondly.
Anon,
Today, we have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of visitors legal visitors cross our shores. They enter with legal visas to visit friends, relatives or tourist attractions. As future visitors enter, we just need our technology updated to ensure we know where they are.
What difference does that make, dee? You are blasting Reagan and yet he gave amnesty to your precious illegals. He doesn't get any credit from you for that?
Dee,
i understand - thank you -
but please clarify -
let's say that there are two million people in the us who come in on tourist visas and then just never leave.
the government knows they are in the us -
do you advocate the police visiting the houses of their relatives to look for them?
i mean be blunt and clear - will some government agency "round them up and forcibly deport them" after they are in the us for an extra year or two?
what is the mechanism
I think we need tighter rules on all visitors to our country. Today, we have hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of legal visitors into our country. We invite them here as tourists, buyers, etc. We just need some type of ID system (electronic?) to make sure we know who and where they are. Do we have it today? No. But we should develop one.
HILLARY CLINTON OPPOSES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DRIVER'S LICENCE.
THIS MEANS THEY WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ILLEGALLY TO GO TO WORK!
THIS MEANS THEY CANT GET INSURANCE FOR THEIR CARS!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-14-clinton-immigration_N.htm
The news (various channels) this morning are reporting that the blacks are so mad at clinton over her/his race baiting that if she is nominated, they won't go to the polls and vote at all come November.
The media is really exploiting this issue, not the Clintons. Chris Matthews HATES the Clintons and MSNBC is really pushing all of this talk. Most of us are ignoring Matthews, Tucker and their ilk!
He didn't say he liked reagan's ideas: he said Reagan had ideas (in the middle of a whole sentence). It was majorly distorted in the media when it was decontextualized and then rephrased (I heard it first). It was then distorted much further by Hillary. She had to backpedal to explain how she put those words in his mouth and it made me sick.
His point was one about economics and inspiration, which no matter how much one hates Reagan and Republicans -- which is me 150% - is that the Reagan years started out being economically prosperous but then went sour. That ideas were not enough, that carry through is critical. And that is what he was saying to HRC... that Obama has carry through where she has words.
Which is why he co-authored the DREAM Act, is one of 2 Senators who marched in the Cinco de Mayo march, was an immigrant himself (in Indonesia), the son of an immigrant, and started out in grassroots work in Chicago working with Latino and African-American organizers mainly to help poverty. That was for the years that Hillary was sitting on the corporate board of Wal-Mart, literally defending her company for using child labor in Bangladesh (it's on youtube and it's sad). Not to mention his courage to face unpopularity and give driver's licenses to undocumented folks, and generally work on naturalization. Hillary's plan, she said in a debate, would be about 12 years before you could be a citizen. Obama has alluded to more like a few months, and he actively speaks out against deporting people with children, so that means no more Elvira Arellano situations. Hillary has NOT said that. She said she would deport anyone "illegal." He uses the term "undocumented," thank God.
Anon,
I am neutral. I will support Hillary or Obama, whomever the Dems select as Dem Candidate for Prez.
I am very concerned about electibility. As a concerned Dem, I pointed out that for any Dem candidate to praise the GOP (new ideas) will not help them. I remember Reagan. He was another right wing puppet. I think Obama now realizes this was a slight misstep. He did the electric slide in saying, "well I didn´t say Good Ideas." It wasn´t a major faux paux.
Also, I am glad he does not mischaracterize Sen. Clinton as you have done in your post.
I have written to both campaigns and asked them not to do this. Both are good candidates. Let the process work and the party select the one we believe is the most electible. We should not mud sling each other. The GOP will do plenty once our candidate is selected.
Post a Comment