A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

which way the next 24 months' slope is a source of concern. We've had one major correction a few years back. If we get another one the Chicago Charlatan will become the lamest of ducks.

There are reasons to be wary of the Fed "free money" bubble.
The stock market looks an awful lot like 1929, and stock ownership has only twice been so highly leveraged.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

And the Dems said that if we elect Obama the oceans will stop rising and America's world image would be restored...

Except that was a stupid GOP talking point, whereas the "OH NOES, VOTE DEM AND TEH WORLD ENDS" was your party's main message.

Now drop back and try again. JFC, I've met you, I cannot understand why you still buy (or at least relay) this LCD bullshit. You do realize they hate you too, right? Dang uppity Ivy degree boy... burn teh witch!

 

[LynahFan]

Except that was a stupid GOP talking point, whereas the "OH NOES, VOTE DEM AND TEH WORLD ENDS" was your party's main message.

Now drop back and try again. JFC, I've met you, I cannot understand why you still buy (or at least relay) this LCD bullshit. You do realize they hate you too, right? Dang uppity Ivy degree boy... burn teh witch!

Uh...no - try again. Those were Obama's own words from his speech right after he wrapped up the nomination in 2008. My only point was that both sides hyperbolize, especially when they are in campaign mode. Ds paint a D win as rainbows and ponies, while Rs cast it as the end of the world. Vice versa for an R win - I guarantee that in 2008, many Ds made dire predictions about a McCain presidency that would not have come true.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I have to agree with Lynah here. The talk from the Left about what would happen if Obama won the election was laughable. Borderline fantasy.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Uh...no - try again. Those were Obama's own words from his speech right after he wrapped up the nomination in 2008. My only point was that both sides hyperbolize, especially when they are in campaign mode. Ds paint a D win as rainbows and ponies, while Rs cast it as the end of the world. Vice versa for an R win - I guarantee that in 2008, many Ds made dire predictions about a McCain presidency that would not have come true.

"Bush's Third Term"
"World War 3"
"He's too old, he'll die in office, and PALIN WILL BE PREZ"

IIRC, these were all popular at the time. Only one I'd agree with is that we'd still be in Iraq, which is a chief reason I was duped into voting for Obama.

 

[walrus]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Nah no hyperbole about Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc

 

[Rover]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

"Bush's Third Term"
"World War 3"
"He's too old, he'll die in office, and PALIN WILL BE PREZ"

IIRC, these were all popular at the time. Only one I'd agree with is that we'd still be in Iraq, which is a chief reason I was duped into voting for Obama.

That's a pretty big reason. McCain was all in on Iraq so much so that he STILL wants to send troops there. We'd also be fighting in Syria right now under Prez McCain and who knows where else.

Bottom line is, until Republicans throw off neo-conservatism in their foreign policy, they can't be trusted with the Presidency. As we saw with George W Bush, there's just too much damage that worldview can do (5,000 troops dead, 2T in costs).

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Uh...no - try again. Those were Obama's own words from his speech right after he wrapped up the nomination in 2008.

As you know, here are the words in context:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

There is nothing bizarre about those words; it is your typical high flown rhetoric when you set a course and give the troops hope that you will get there. The dipshit interpretation was normal for Breitbart and the like -- any tool to hand. But you're usually more sensible. Hate to see you passing the derp along on this one.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

That's a pretty big reason. McCain was all in on Iraq so much so that he STILL wants to send troops there. We'd also be fighting in Syria right now under Prez McCain and who knows where else.

Bottom line is, until Republicans throw off neo-conservatism in their foreign policy, they can't be trusted with the Presidency. As we saw with George W Bush, there's just too much damage that worldview can do (5,000 troops dead, 2T in costs).

The 'Cons wanted wars in Iran, Libya, and Syria. They are insane. The only way the GOP can be allowed near the WH again is if and when they throw the Neocons out the door and go back to their roots (Buchanan's not right about much -- actually, he's not right about anything other than this, but this he has right). It's been done before. The Neocon parasites started out in the Democratic party in the 60s, with JFK's cold war liberalism. They jumped ship in the 70's when they saw the GOP as a better host. They've been laying their eggs in the GOP lizard brain ever since. It's long past the time the right sent them packing, too.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

The U.S. fighting endless wars is an incredible waste of human lives, money and the time our political leaders spend dealing with it.

That said, I believe we have to walk a fine line. There is something to be said for having someone perceived to be just slightly crazy with his finger on the button. It kind of keeps the hooligans in the world in check, at least partly.

You can argue that our troop involvement in the middle east under Bush II went on too long, and I won't disagree. But sometimes I think the pendulum swings back too far, if it's perceived in the world that our administration has no taste or political will for military engagement. Then you start to see people like Putin acting with impunity. What are we going to do, stop shipping apples to Russia?

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

"Bush's Third Term"
"World War 3"
"He's too old, he'll die in office, and PALIN WILL BE PREZ"

IIRC, these were all popular at the time. Only one I'd agree with is that we'd still be in Iraq, which is a chief reason I was duped into voting for Obama.

I don't know, Camo Barbie being that close to occupying the oval office is a legitimate concern.

 

[unofan]

I don't know, Camo Barbie being that close to occupying the oval office is a legitimate concern.

Palin was virtually the sole reason my vote switched from McCain to Obama in 2008. The GOP doubling down on the derp has kept me away.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I have to agree with Lynah here. The talk from the Left about what would happen if Obama won the election was laughable. Borderline fantasy.

Borderline? I'd say full-blown!

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

That said, I believe we have to walk a fine line. There is something to be said for having someone perceived to be just slightly crazy with his finger on the button. It kind of keeps the hooligans in the world in check, at least partly.

You can argue that our troop involvement in the middle east under Bush II went on too long, and I won't disagree. But sometimes I think the pendulum swings back too far, if it's perceived in the world that our administration has no taste or political will for military engagement. Then you start to see people like Putin acting with impunity. What are we going to do, stop shipping apples to Russia?

I disagree strongly. Like the business world, the world of state actors needs order and predictability to flourish. An unpredictable US does not deter attacks, it just freaks out allies, breeds mistrust, and makes small conflicts more likely to escalate. Look at how well AQ used US strength against ourselves with 9/11. A million dollar investment provoking a multi-trillion dollar waste of resources, the betrayal of American values at home, the poisoning of overseas relations, and a huge AQ recruiting boost for a decade. Osama played us like a fiddle and, because the White House at the time had missiles for brains, we did all the heavy lifting for them. Likewise, US bombing breeds anti-Americanism and US invasions destroy our standing in a region for at least a generation.

Strength is alliances; leadership is coordinated economic action. We do have a problem right now: we can't get the major NATO players on board to boycott the Russians, and part of this has to be pinned on Obama and his people for lacking the imagination and/or commitment. We have all the tools to force Russia to act responsibly, but our command of those tools is weak. If nothing else, we could just flat out bribe Germany and France. It would be a lot less expensive than whatever crackpot military solution is on Jeb Bush's drawing board.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Palin was virtually the sole reason my vote switched from McCain to Obama in 2008. The GOP doubling down on the derp has kept me away.

Were you solid GOP before that?

I don't think I've ever met somebody who just flat out changed between the big two. I've met plenty who (like me) went from Libertarian to Democratic after 2000, or went from GOP to Libertarian after 2004. But to actually hop, and stay hopped... that's very surprising to me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Borderline? I'd say full-blown!

Eye of the beholder. To me it was the exuberance of not having to wake up every morning to that bunch of cranks and criminals as our Executive branch. When you've just broken out of jail, the air smells extra sweet.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I don't think I've ever met somebody who just flat out changed between the big two.

In other words, neither you nor the poeple you know had yet reached voting age during Carter's Presidency.

There were quite a few people who switched from D to R between 1976 and 1980.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

There is nothing bizarre about those words; it is your typical high flown rhetoric when you set a course and give the troops hope that you will get there. The dipshit interpretation was normal for Breitbart and the like -- any tool to hand. But you're usually more sensible. Hate to see you passing the derp along on this one.

If I may return the backhanded compliment, you're usually above viewing similar language from both sides and labeling one as "high flown rhetoric" and the other as "lies and exaggerations."

 

[Rover]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

In other words, neither you nor the poeple you know had yet reached voting age during Carter's Presidency.

There were quite a few people who switched from D to R between 1976 and 1980.

Earth to Fishy. That was over 30 years ago. Anybody who voted for Reagan in 1980 is no younger than 52 years old now.

And you wonder why GOP now stands for Grumpy Old People. It was funny whenever I saw some broken down old pundit or USCHO conservative try to equate the 2012 election to 1980. All I could think was "Dinosaur Alert"!!!

 

[unofan]

Were you solid GOP before that?

I don't think I've ever met somebody who just flat out changed between the big two. I've met plenty who (like me) went from Libertarian to Democratic after 2000, or went from GOP to Libertarian after 2004. But to actually hop, and stay hopped... that's very surprising to me.

Primarily, yeah. I would've been a Rockefeller republican back in the day. I've yet to vote straight ticket in any election (2008 I was one of the 15,000 or so Obama -Terry voters that gave the omaha electoral vote to Obama while keeping Lee Terry in the house) but certain political realities are making that streak less likely to continue.

My current rep, Tom Latham, isn't a tea bagger. The problem is he's retiring, and I know nothing about the GOP nominee for the district except that he was picked by delegates since no one got the necessary votes at their primary. So I'll probably vote dem just because I know she wont side with the tea party. The senate race is an easy dem vote because the GOP nominee is Palin 2.0 (her qualification is she grew up castrating pigs). The governors race is a dem vote purely for personal reasons (BranStache hates state workers), not that it'll matter since the Stache will win easily. I may split the vote on some down ballot races, but even then I don't want the state Senate going GOP in order to keep the divided govt in place and keep Iowa from going full Kansas, so I may be forced to vote dem there as well (again, not that it will matter since my suburb of Des Moines is solidly red).