Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

From today's Boston Globe:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’

No wonder the symbol for the Democratic party is a mule donkey!

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Edwards not guilty on one charge, mistrial declared on the other five.

*fail horn*

I would love to hear an interview with the jurors to find out how they were able to justify that verdict.

[Twitch Boy]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I would love to hear an interview with the jurors to find out how they were able to justify that verdict.

Didn't really follow this much, but from what I'm gathering he was more guilty of being a feminine hygiene product than of breaking the law.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

From today's Boston Globe:



No wonder the symbol for the Democratic party is a mule donkey!

It just makes me sad that someone that intelligent can be that stupid at the same time. I renounce my admiration.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Not fun when you get caught being a hypocrite, eh?

You can do better than that comeback. I know you can. Maybe try something that's true.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The "proximity" argument has no bearing here. The issue is residency. A kid who lives in California has no more claim to pay in-state tuition at the U of A than a kid from Rhode Island. The kid in "the next state over" pays in-state tuition in that state.

And if the children of illegal aliens don't pay in state tuition, what do they pay? Or do you just prohibit them from attending state schools? And is it in the long term best interests of a state to erect barriors for these kids (who have been graduated from state high schools) to get access to higher education? And is it fair to punish the children of illegals? Children who had nothing to do with the illegality? Every one of these kids should move toward citizenship as fast as possible. And if that means we have to simplify or compress the process, we should at least consider it.

IMO, the first order of business in dealing with illegal immigration is to stop it. The question of what we do with the millions of illegals and their kids who are already here is a much larger, more complicated problem. Rounding up 10 or 12 million people and shipping them out would be a legal, ethical, logistical quaqmire. I doubt we could afford it, even if we tried. It would, however, usher in a golden age for the open borders crowd and the ACLU.

In formulating our policy here, we should be careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face. At some point, we'll have enough bus boys and leaf blowers. Then what? Wouldn't we be better off if at least some of these young people got an education that prepared them for 21st century jobs and for citizenship, too? For the most part, having been graduated from state high schools, these young people are indistinguishable from other kids of Latino heritage, except for their immigration status. That's an important distinction, to be sure, but these kids aren't exactly Hester Prynne.

You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You can do better than that comeback. I know you can. Maybe try something that's true.

Not true? You point out how true it is in your next post:

You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.

An illegal kid?

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.

I understand how it seems to you. However, an out of state kid deserves exactly zero consideraton for in-state tuition in the "next state over." Zero. This is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with the question of what we're going to do with these kids of illegals. Apples/Oranges

[SJHovey]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.

Isn't the in-state vs. out of state tuition difference based upon an assumption that the in-state student (or more likely his/her family) is already contributing to the school indirectly through sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc...? If that's the case, it seems to me anyone in the state ought to get that break, whether they're a citizen or not.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

It just makes me sad that someone that intelligent can be that stupid at the same time. I renounce my admiration.

She is stuck with the lies she told. In the same way Teddy was stuck with the lies he told after Chappaquiddick.

Just as her first instinct when this story broke was to play the gender card, now she's playing the "granny" card. None of this has anything to do with her qualifications for the senate, which are evidently extensive, unless you think truth telling is optional, and sytem gaming is admirable.

And she's going to tough it out, claiming a heritage for which there's no proof. And the Cherokees, among others, are on her five yard line.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/po...9&pos=breaking

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I understand how it seems to you. However, an out of state kid deserves exactly zero consideraton for in-state tuition in the "next state over." Zero. This is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with the question of what we're going to do with these kids of illegals. Apples/Oranges

I understand that you don't share my opinion so you'd give zero consideration to whether a student is a U.S. citizen from another state or not. I don't share your opinion. I'd rather give a tuition break to a kid from the next state over than I would to a kid who isn't from any state legally.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Isn't the in-state vs. out of state tuition difference based upon an assumption that the in-state student (or more likely his/her family) is already contributing to the school indirectly through sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc...? If that's the case, it seems to me anyone in the state ought to get that break, whether they're a citizen or not.

I understand the point you are making. There are differing arguments about how much an illegal folks in a given state contribution financially to the state compared to the benefits they receive.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

An illegal kid?

Yes. I think that's an easy to understand concept, at least until now.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I understand that you don't share my opinion so you'd give zero consideration to whether a student is a U.S. citizen from another state or not. I don't share your opinion. I'd rather give a tuition break to a kid from the next state over than I would to a kid who isn't from any state legally.

So, in your mind, the distinction between living or not living in a state is irrelevant. Then why not eliminate two tier tuition altogether? I understand you want to punish these kids of illegals, but what you're suggesting simply makes no sense. And if you're going to give tuition breaks to out of state kids, shouldn't you demand reciprocity from other states? It seems fairly simple to me, citizenship and residency are two different matters. You apparantly want to conflate them.

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Yes. I think that's an easy to understand concept, at least until now.

In the past you have referred to them as "anchor babies" have you not? And your contention was that they were not to be considered legal US citizens. As such, it would seem to me that they are not to be afforded in-state tuition. Or has your opinion evolved since that debate?