Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

It is a fiction Bob. Not for every single person in the country, but overall spare me. The party that claims the mantle (not individual people, but the whole) spent like crazy when they were in office which was only 4 years ago, and where were all of these so called activists when that was going on? Answer: nowhere to be found. Move beyond that, ask these so called fiscal conservatives if they long for the balanced budgets of the 90's and because that would require giving the lions share of credit to a President from another party they'll try to tell you it was all made up, but then in the next breath support the budget busting tax cuts that came after.

Sorry Bob, but 99% of so called fiscal conservatives are full of $%^&. Elect a Republican next time around and have them borrow money to pass a massive tax cut, and watch their silence over that action even though it goes against their alleged concern over raising the deficit.

Oh, come on. Step beyond your partisan yammering.

You are confused in trying to define fiscal conservatism in terms of just Republicans and Democrats. And you're creating a false black-and-white only dochotomy, when there are many shades of gray out there on an issue like this. I'm all for calling out people who claim fiscal conservatism and then behave very differently. I blasted Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, and I'm now blasting Obama for fiscal irresponsibility. Not everything should be defined by partisan bickering.

I'd think you, who have been around the board awhile, would have noticed, as I've sung the same song for many years. I can understand the cynicism, as both parties have failed miserably at balancing revenues and spending. But that doesn't mean there are no fiscal conservatives out there or that it isn't a fight worth fighting. Even if the tide is moving massively against fiscal conservatism, there are still a good number of folks out there who recognize that it's a cause worth fighting for. Or we could just stick our head in the ground and pretend everything is fine, as you basically suggest.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I'm sure no other state police forces are faced with the threat of death every time they go out on patrol.

Thanks for clarifying that you don't care about our law enforcement officers on the border being threatened.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Thanks for clarifying that you don't care about our law enforcement officers on the border being threatened.

I was just shocked that you don't care about law enforcement officers in the other 49 states.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I was just shocked that you don't care about law enforcement officers in the other 49 states.

ok, now your just being plain stupid.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

You are confused in trying to define fiscal conservatism in terms of just Republicans and Democrats. And you're creating a false black-and-white only dochotomy, when there are many shades of gray out there on an issue like this. I'm all for calling out people who claim fiscal conservatism and then behave very differently. I blasted Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, and I'm now blasting Obama for fiscal irresponsibility. Not everything should be defined by partisan bickering.

No one is blasting the concept of fiscal responsbility, they're blasting those that wave the concept around like a badge of honor that in real practice presently rings hollow. The point is no one currently in office does anything about spending, including the side the Teabaggers espouse more than the other.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

ok, now your just being plain stupid.

Yes, because pointing out the fact that police officers everywhere are under pretty much constant threat makes me stupid.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

No one is blasting the concept of fiscal responsbility, they're blasting those that wave the concept around like a badge of honor that in real practice presently rings hollow. The point is no one currently in office does anything about spending, including the side the Teabaggers espouse more than the other.

That's simply not true. I agree a lot more people should be doing a lot more, but to blast those who try to push the issue at all only undermines any efforts to introduce even rudimentary fiscal responsibility. It's nonsensical to claim that "no one currently in office does anything about spending".

Example. Representative Jeff Flake from here in Arizona.

http://flake.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=2103

To claim he does nothing on fiscal issues is patently false. Could he or others do more? Sure. But, I guess I'm not entirely cynical. I believe in supporting those who take steps in the right direction, rather than copping out by claiming nobody ever does anything and everyone is bad.

 

[Rover]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Oh, come on. Step beyond your partisan yammering.

You are confused in trying to define fiscal conservatism in terms of just Republicans and Democrats. And you're creating a false black-and-white only dochotomy, when there are many shades of gray out there on an issue like this. I'm all for calling out people who claim fiscal conservatism and then behave very differently. I blasted Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, and I'm now blasting Obama for fiscal irresponsibility. Not everything should be defined by partisan bickering.

I'd think you, who have been around the board awhile, would have noticed, as I've sung the same song for many years. I can understand the cynicism, as both parties have failed miserably at balancing revenues and spending. But that doesn't mean there are no fiscal conservatives out there or that it isn't a fight worth fighting. Even if the tide is moving massively against fiscal conservatism, there are still a good number of folks out there who recognize that it's a cause worth fighting for. Or we could just stick our head in the ground and pretend everything is fine, as you basically suggest.

Bob, I already addressed this. Your personal opposition is insignificant. That's no fault of your own, it just is. Tell me again where all of this organized opposition was when the perscription drug mandate, a totally unfunded law, was passed? Where were the marches? The speeches? The editorials? The reps getting primaried because of it? Nowhere. You speak of not chalking it up to partisanship, but what should it be called when the its okay when one party does it, but not the other? What should we call it when half the country won't use the 90's as an example of fiscal restraint simply because they'd have to share credit with someone from another ideology? That's partisanship.

Conservatives always want to hide behind the idea that "oh well, so and so proposed this" or "I personally was against that" to give them cover. Nobody's buying it. As we've seen from various debates this year, it takes a collective effort by a lot of people to pass legislation, not one person with one idea that never sees the light of day. On this point, conservatives have failed miserably. There is no organized effort in their caucus to bring about the change they pay so much lip service to when they actually have the reigns of power.

As an aside Bob, I voted for the guy twice who campaigned on, and then gave the country, a balanced budget. I then voted for the guy who campaigned on continuing to use the surplus to pay down the deficit, over the guy who's tax plans I felt were ridiculous. That was my contribution. I'll take your word for it if you did, but I find it hard to believe you voted Democratic three elections in a row to match that when it mattered.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Yes, because pointing out the fact that police officers everywhere are under pretty much constant threat makes me stupid.

No. Saying I don't care about police officers anywhere else because I point out the threat law enforcement faces in border areas is incredibly cynical and shows a lack of concern for law enforcement or border problems. I suppose you don't care either about the Nogales Police Department, who the drug runners have openly said they'd target with snipers across the border if they continue to interfere with drug shipments in the area? I expect cynicism on certain aspects of illegal immigration policy, but when people show a basic lack of caring for our law enforcement officials, those in the border areas in this case, it really peeves me, to say it nicely.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

That's simply not true. I agree a lot more people should be doing a lot more, but to blast those who try to push the issue at all only undermines any efforts to introduce even rudimentary fiscal responsibility.

It's not a knock on those that support fiscal responsibility, they're mocking the belief one side does anything more about than the other.

I believe in supporting those who take steps in the right direction, rather than copping out by claiming nobody ever does anything and everyone is bad.

Of course some are trying to do something about it and we need more of them, but again the point is there's a blind allegiance by some (not necessarily you) that insist an entire party is far more likely to improve government spending than the other, despite the obvious recent results that point to the contrary.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Bob, I already addressed this. Your personal opposition is insignificant. That's no fault of your own, it just is. Tell me again where all of this organized opposition was when the perscription drug mandate, a totally unfunded law, was passed? Where were the marches? The speeches? The editorials? The reps getting primaried because of it? Nowhere. You speak of not chalking it up to partisanship, but what should it be called when the its okay when one party does it, but not the other? What should we call it when half the country won't use the 90's as an example of fiscal restraint simply because they'd have to share credit with someone from another ideology? That's partisanship.

Conservatives always want to hide behind the idea that "oh well, so and so proposed this" or "I personally was against that" to give them cover. Nobody's buying it. As we've seen from various debates this year, it takes a collective effort by a lot of people to pass legislation, not one person with one idea that never sees the light of day. On this point, conservatives have failed miserably. There is no organized effort in their caucus to bring about the change they pay so much lip service to when they actually have the reigns of power.

As an aside Bob, I voted for the guy twice who campaigned on, and then gave the country, a balanced budget. I then voted for the guy who campaigned on continuing to use the surplus to pay down the deficit, over the guy who's tax plans I felt were ridiculous. That was my contribution. I'll take your word for it if you did, but I find it hard to believe you voted Democratic three elections in a row to match that when it mattered.

ok. I can see you just can't get past the politics, and somehow seem to think I'm siding with somebody here. Read what I've said on this board the last ten years. Both parties, that's Republicans and Democrats, have stunk on fiscal responsibility. Both, as in not just one or the other. Can I spell it out any more clearly? Now, my observation is that there's at least a few Republicans, like Jeff Flake, who try to push the issue, while I don't know a Democrat who is comparable to Flake. Flake has taken a lot of heat within his own party for calling out issues that haven't been comfortable for the Republicans when they ran things.

On Presidential elections, if you think you voted for a candidate in the last 30 years (probably a lot more, maybe back to Eisenhower) who cared a lot about fiscal responsibility, you are deluded. The last candidate who made that a centerpiece at all was Ronald Reagan, and then he turned out to be an unmitigated disaster on the issue.

Sometimes you have to fight the good fight, support candidates who espouse the right direction (if such candidates are available), even in the face of evidence that the nation is tumbling headlong into policies that move the exact opposite direction. Either that, or stop pretending you care.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I just said no one blasts anyone that supports fiscal responsibility, they're mocking the belief one side does anything more about than the other.

Try to not be so literal. Of course some are trying to do something about it and we need more of them, abut gain the point is the blind allegiance to insisting that an entire party is far more likely to improve government spending than the other given the obvious recent results that point to the contrary.

Sorry, I can only take you by the words you type, unless you put a smily in or something, which you didn't.

I see both you and Rover just can't get past the partisan angle. But, as I've already said a number of times today, let alone hundreds of times in the past, as a whole, both parties have been awful on fiscal responsibility. So get over your complex that I'm blaming one party and not the other. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Sorry, I can only take you by the words you type, unless you put a smily in or something, which you didn't.

Nothing I wrote could be construed the way you felt.

So get over your complex that I'm blaming one party and not the other. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say to you.

I never said you yourself are the guilty party, only that the mocking of fiscal responsibility is saved for partisan hacks. If that's not you so be it, but don't be such a drama queen and overreacting to what people actually write.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Nothing I wrote could be construed the way you felt.

I never said you yourself are the guilty party, only that the mocking of fiscal responsibility is saved for partisan hacks. If that's not you so be it, but don't be such a drama queen and overreacting to what people actually write.

I was directly responding to your saying that "The point is no one currently in office does anything about spending". It's really pretty easy to see what I responded to, and I responded quite directly to your claim. To say otherwise is obfuscation.

The drama queens are those who make grandiose, sweeping generalizations and claims, then attack those who point out obvious inconsistencies and errors.

 

[walrus]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

It's not a knock on those that support fiscal responsibility, they're mocking the belief one side does anything more about than the other.

.

And well they should as neither party should be trusted with our wallets

 

[Slap Shot]

I was directly responding to your saying that "The point is no one currently in office does anything about spending". It's really pretty easy to see what I responded to, and I responded quite directly to your claim. To say otherwise is obfuscation.

You're smart enough to comprehend such a comment didn't actually mean no one is doing anything about it. People use such terms all the time without intending to convey a 100% absolute.

 

[Rover]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

ok. I can see you just can't get past the politics, and somehow seem to think I'm siding with somebody here. Read what I've said on this board the last ten years. Both parties, that's Republicans and Democrats, have stunk on fiscal responsibility. Both, as in not just one or the other. Can I spell it out any more clearly? Now, my observation is that there's at least a few Republicans, like Jeff Flake, who try to push the issue, while I don't know a Democrat who is comparable to Flake. Flake has taken a lot of heat within his own party for calling out issues that haven't been comfortable for the Republicans when they ran things.

On Presidential elections, if you think you voted for a candidate in the last 30 years (probably a lot more, maybe back to Eisenhower) who cared a lot about fiscal responsibility, you are deluded. The last candidate who made that a centerpiece at all was Ronald Reagan, and then he turned out to be an unmitigated disaster on the issue.

Sometimes you have to fight the good fight, support candidates who espouse the right direction (if such candidates are available), even in the face of evidence that the nation is tumbling headlong into policies that move the exact opposite direction. Either that, or stop pretending you care.

Lets put aside parties and talk conservatives vs liberals. What it sounds like is that we shouldn't bother using past history to judge future actions, even though the conservative political leadership is the same, AND we shouldn't expect a plan from them because they haven't offered anything collectively that they would enact if conservatives become the majority movement in government again. No offense, but that sounds like a disaster.

Was Flake in Congress when there were in the majority? Because if he was why didn't he really people behind his ideas when they had the power to make changes? Are we to reward slogans instead of action? As someone who's worked in the real world, you have to know that just coming up with an idea vs actually implementing it are two far, far different things. Flake and anyone else of his inkling, and his supporters, should have been building a movement for years. What has he done to at least get his like minded officeholders on board so that we can expect deficit reduction is the party he currently resides in becomes the majority? Do you seriously think conservatives, upon election, will actually pass legislation (even if Obama vetos it) to bring down the deficit? Or do you think we'd see more tax cuts paid for by borrowing?

I don't doubt your personal sincerity on this issue. However, overall conservatives as fiscal stewards is a laughingstock. Tell me what the plan is, overall, once conservatives are in power. Because if you say Flake = what a new right majority will do, that leaves you open for Angle = new conservative majority or Paul = new conservative majority. Its not about what one person thinks. Its about who can build a coalition to enact change. IMHO, I've seen no evidence, nor any concrete plans by conservatives, most likely working through the Republican party, that have any desire to pursue the priorities you find important. In fact, the only fiscal issue they have all rallied around is extending the Bush tax cuts, a deficit increasing action.

 

[walrus]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Lets put aside parties and talk conservatives vs liberals.

I don't see how they can be called conservatives if they spend money like a drunken sailor(no offense to drunk sailors). They might want to call themselves that or the media might want to call them that but if they aren't fiscally conservative, they aren't conservatives.
Ron Paul might be one, other than that, who?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

ok. I can see you just can't get past the politics, and somehow seem to think I'm siding with somebody here.

First, most do understand the difference...but there's absolutely a connection here - voting.

The big point here is that Republicans were voted in in huge numbers in 2004. It wasn't liberals who voted for them, it wasn't independents even so much...it was both so called fiscal and social conservatives and in large numbers. 'Fiscal conservatives' showed in the only way tangible that they really are good with spending if its done by people they like...and often on their stuff. Even coming up on 2006, Bush still had approval of near 40%...again, there aren't enough strictly social conservatives to make up that number.

So...no politics is not the same as a fiscal viewpoint...but the most meaningful action that these 'fiscal conservatives' took in the last decade was to put their support in huge numbers behind big spenders using politics.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

You're smart enough to comprehend such a comment didn't actually mean no one is doing anything about it. People use such terms all the time without intending to convey a 100% absolute.

If you didn't mean it, I'd suggest you say something like very few people do very much. On a message board people can only go by the words you put in front of them. But, I understand your clarification that you didn't literally mean what you said.