The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Rapunzel on January 07, 2014, 09:32:28 pm
-
http://weaselzippers.us/?p=166953
Christie Gushes Over Illegal Immigrants: “You Are An Inspiration”…
Maybe he’ll run as a Democrat in 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmIwqQ--D-Y
ZIP | January 7, 2014 2:55 pm
-
LOL, okay, so Christine is still funny to me right now, but that'll stop if Fatty gets anywhere close to capturing the GOP nomination in 2016. He is such a tool, first the Muslims, now the Mexicans? I'd guessed a double-cheeseburger platter with works would be his real "inspiration".
-
Most criminals think fellow law breakers are an inspiration. If Christie is the face of the GOP, we need to put the GOP out of its misery.
-
Let's get real, it's going to boil down, as usual to the least worse and more Conservatives and Republicans staying at home.
-
He's the ONLY Republican today that can do an outreach like this effectively.
Or are some of our members not able to grasp the concept? :whistle:
-
Let's get real, it's going to boil down, as usual to the least worse and more Conservatives and Republicans staying at home.
I won't be voting for Chris Christie for president. I will not change my mind. This is for the record. I won't be eatin' any crow on it!
No way!
D.C. Patriot, are you "able to grasp the concept?" ;)
-
I won't be voting for Chris Christie for president. I will not change my mind. This is for the record. I won't be eatin' any crow on it!
No way!
D.C. Patriot, are you "able to grasp the concept?" ;)
Then the rest of the GOP had better start dealing with illegal immigrants in a more practical, Reaganesque, way, or by default the choices will be Christie or a demoncrat.
-
I won't be voting for Chris Christie for president. I will not change my mind. This is for the record. I won't be eatin' any crow on it!
No way!
D.C. Patriot, are you "able to grasp the concept?" ;)
First, let me say that I respect your opinion. If you don't want to vote against your personal principles, so be it.
Lord knows that's a lot more important to the country than another four years of this Marxist crap under Hillary Clinton.
....do I need a sarcasm tag? :laugh:
-
He's the ONLY Republican today that can do an outreach like this effectively.
Or are some of our members not able to grasp the concept? :whistle:
Christie is appalling for many reasons. First, he is ego maniacal. He tried to upstage Romney throughout the last election including the convention speech. He embraced Obama to serve his own self interest at a crucial and pivotal time. The GOP does not need a narcissist as it nominee. Second, Christie has a very questionable past. He was investigated by the department of Justice for excessive spending while a US attorney. He was a lobbyist for a securities group during the Madoff era. Romney backed away from Christie in large part due to his baggage. He is ripe for scandal. The baggage will be on full exhibit if he is the nominee. Third, Christie is a left wing Republican. He is against the Second Amendment, pro amnesty, and liberal on social issues. He seems to have no real Conservative ideological core. What Conservative tendencies he may have could easily be discarded to soothe his self interest and massive ego. Fourth, Christie is a bully and has a mob boss mentality. He wouldn't let Romney raise cash in Jersey until he gave permission. He will seek to crush Conservative opposition within the GOP if he is the nominee. He will be the GOP version of Stalin.
Christie reminds me of a less intelligent though much fatter version of Richard Nixon. He will be at least equally bad as Nixon. For these and other reasons, I will not vote for Christie under any circumstances.
-
He's the ONLY Republican today that can do an outreach like this effectively.
Or are some of our members not able to grasp the concept? :whistle:
I am familiar with the concept of selling out.
(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121031_obama_christie_ap_605.jpg)
(Photo credit: AP via Politico)
-
I am familiar with the concept of selling out.
(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121031_obama_christie_ap_605.jpg)
(Photo credit: AP via Politico)
He was trying to do everything he could to ensure that Obama would be forced to act swiftly in getting FEMA and other assistance for the New Jersey Shore economy.
If you were the Governor of New Jersey at that time, you'd kiss Obama's a$$ too.....in Nordstom's front window.
-
He was trying to do everything he could to ensure that Obama would be forced to act swiftly in getting FEMA and other assistance for the New Jersey Shore economy.
If you were the Governor of New Jersey at that time, you'd kiss Obama's a$$ too.....in Nordstom's front window.
I believe Christie could have accomplished those objectives without the passionate embrace and Obama love. Christie did not want Romney to win as it would delay his run. Christie also wanted a strong victory in Jersey to propel him as a front runner in the 2016 race. Bottom line, Christie did what he does best: Benefit himself by any means necessary.
-
First, let me say that I respect your opinion. If you don't want to vote against your personal principles, so be it.
Lord knows that's a lot more important to the country than another four years of this Marxist crap under Hillary Clinton.
....do I need a sarcasm tag? :laugh:
I see that you've determined that snark, sarcasm and derision are essential ways to advance your view.
-
I see that you've determined that snark, sarcasm and derision are essential ways to advance your view.
I agree with you....on this topic.
It's cultivated by communicating with 'brick walls' for over a decade.....on the topic of dealing with "illegal immigrants".
I've been proven correct on virtually EVERY detail on how the issue was going to be handled and manipulated....since 1998.
-
I see that you've determined that snark, sarcasm and derision are essential ways to advance your view.
How else to respond to a fellow Conservative who thinks it's wiser to sit on your a$$ and stay home rather than cast a vote against the greater evil among us?
That worked really well in 2012 didn't it?
-
How else to respond to a fellow Conservative who thinks it's wiser to sit on your a$$ and stay home rather than cast a vote against the greater evil among us?
That worked really well in 2012 didn't it?
People are people. Conservative, libertarian, liberal, doesn't matter, if someone has their mind made up, moving them off that is unlikely. It's extremely unlikely to be productive to attack and deride.
Realistically, all you can do is make your case, and let whoever reads it decide. You may move some lurkers, but those who have decided that Christie is unpalatable, are unlikely to reconsider.
Or you can take the sinkspur approach, and hammer everyone who disagrees with you. Not productive, but it seems to make him feel better.
-
Or you can take the sinkspur approach, and hammer everyone who disagrees with you. Not productive, but it seems to make him feel better.
...or it could be a case of Sinkspur doing exactly what your strategy is......standing up for your principles regardless of the outcome and despite whose feelings get hurt.
-
...or it could be a case of Sinkspur doing exactly what your strategy is......standing up for your principles regardless of the outcome and despite whose feelings get hurt.
Bullspit. There is standing up, and there is attacking, name calling, and just being plain old nasty.
I agree with sinkspur often. I disagree with his name calling style just as often. You have waded into those waters in this thread. If it makes you feel good, go for it. I'm not easily offended, but I do know that being disagreeable is rarely the path to reaching an agreement.
-
Bullspit. There is standing up, and there is attacking, name calling, and just being plain old nasty.
I agree with sinkspur often. I disagree with his name calling style just as often. You have waded into those waters in this thread. If it makes you feel good, go for it. I'm not easily offended, but I do know that being disagreeable is rarely the path to reaching an agreement.
The huge irony that I see here?
Sinkspur and I have been butting heads on illegal immigrants for years. It's one of the very few issues we don't see eye to eye.
I keep telling him it's because he's in Texas....a state overrun by border jumpers for years. Same thing with Rapunzel....who's in Arizona. Their firsthand experience with them is totally different than my interaction with them.
Maryland however, is a huge sanctuary State. There's not a Republican to be found in elective office anywhere....other than on the Eastern Shore or in the far reaches of the Western part of the State.
I've eaten at their dinner tables....played catch with their kids. Perspective is everything I guess. :laugh:
-
The huge irony that I see here?
Sinkspur and I have been butting heads on illegal immigrants for years. It's one of the very few issues we don't see eye to eye.
I keep telling him it's because he's in Texas....a state overrun by border jumpers for years. Same thing with Rapunzel....who's in Arizona. Their firsthand experience with them is totally different than my interaction with them.
I've eaten at their dinner tables....played catch with their kids. Perspective is everything I guess. :laugh:
I'm talking style not substance here.
If you want to go back to substance in a format other than attack style, I can do that. There are two issues at hand, Christie's presidential prospects and immigration. You seem to be focused on immigration.
As for Christie, I find him lacking. I dislike his bullying, and extreme self interest. Christie may be better than a Democrat, but it's not a clear superiority. As was said up thread, and I agree, Christie is likely to jettison anything for self interest. Which means with enough media pressure, Christie could be coerced into governing like a liberal Democrat. If Christie is the nominee, I'll have a very, very difficult time deciding what to do.
As for immigration, that's a very confusing one. We have laws, and the laws are sufficient, if they were only enforced. Your view seems to be more emotion rather than calculation. Don't get me wrong, emotion should be part of the calculus, but it shouldn't be the sole determinant. We have millions of people who were lured here to provide cheap labor. Unfortunately, along with the hard workers came the criminals. I'm suspicious of amnesty because the last amnesty was such a sham. If I had my say, we would close the border first. Make it so Mexicans have to go through the same process as Indians, or Vietnamese, or Italians, or anyone else to enter the country. Put in place a real, verifiable work visa program. Those that have made a life here, give them the option to become American, or go home. Those that are criminal in their behavior, deport them. If they are to be deported, they can take their family, or leave them here, doesn't matter, but we don't need more criminals. That's how I would do it.
The urban blacks need someone to work so they can stay on welfare, may as well be Mexicans. It's going to be interesting when Mexicans become the dominant culture in the United States, and they will, because Mexicans won't have "white guilt". Urban blacks are going to get a real wake up when Mexicans are in charge.
-
I'm talking style not substance here.
If you want to go back to substance in a format other than attack style, I can do that. There are two issues at hand, Christie's presidential prospects and immigration. You seem to be focused on immigration.
As for Christie, I find him lacking. I dislike his bullying, and extreme self interest. Christie may be better than a Democrat, but it's not a clear superiority. As was said up thread, and I agree, Christie is likely to jettison anything for self interest. Which means with enough media pressure, Christie could be coerced into governing like a liberal Democrat. If Christie is the nominee, I'll have a very, very difficult time deciding what to do.
As for immigration, that's a very confusing one. We have laws, and the laws are sufficient, if they were only enforced. Your view seems to be more emotion rather than calculation. Don't get me wrong, emotion should be part of the calculus, but it shouldn't be the sole determinant. We have millions of people who were lured here to provide cheap labor. Unfortunately, along with the hard workers came the criminals. I'm suspicious of amnesty because the last amnesty was such a sham. If I had my say, we would close the border first. Make it so Mexicans have to go through the same process as Indians, or Vietnamese, or Italians, or anyone else to enter the country. Put in place a real, verifiable work visa program. Those that have made a life here, give them the option to become American, or go home. Those that are criminal in their behavior, deport them. If they are to be deported, they can take their family, or leave them here, doesn't matter, but we don't need more criminals. That's how I would do it.
The urban blacks need someone to work so they can stay on welfare, may as well be Mexicans. It's going to be interesting when Mexicans become the dominant culture in the United States, and they will, because Mexicans won't have "white guilt". Urban blacks are going to get a real wake up when Mexicans are in charge.
I'm curious, just exactly how does one "close the border?" I keep hearing that phrase over and over again, but I've never heard anyone actually explain in real terms how that would be accomplished and, more to the point, what the cost would be.
-
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election -- and has referred the case for possible prosecution.
Those are the kinds of people Christie adores. They are nothing more than politics to him.
-
I'm curious, just exactly how does one "close the border?" I keep hearing that phrase over and over again, but I've never heard anyone actually explain in real terms how that would be accomplished and, more to the point, what the cost would be.
I find it interesting that borders are closed throughout the world without difficulty. But when someone mentions closing the US - Mexico border, suddenly it's a herculean task.
Closing the border kind of looks like this:
A fence where practical.
Electronic monitoring.
A border patrol that is empowered. Meaning, if someone is caught illegally crossing, there is a mechanism for deportation. If there is a repeat offender, let them spend time in a US jail. If there is violent resistance, violent response is authorized.
Seriously, with all the money we waste on all manner of things, do you really think this is cost prohibitive? Don't you think lessening the burden on our societal systems, and law enforcement would offset the cost.
It seriously irritates me when people act like securing the border is more complex than curing cancer. Go try to sneak into Mexico via their southern border or try to sneak into Russia. Let me know how that works? Heck, even Iran can find Americans snooping around their borders and arrest them!
-
I'm curious, just exactly how does one "close the border?" I keep hearing that phrase over and over again, but I've never heard anyone actually explain in real terms how that would be accomplished and, more to the point, what the cost would be.
You don't because you can't.
Look, we're an island. Only ways into or out of the country is by air, boat or one railway tunnel. I suppose, technically, you can swim the Channel. It's only 18 miles and the busiest shipping lane you can imagine. We can't keep illegals out, despite strict airport controls, heat sensitive detectors for lorries coming in, a very tough and efficient coastguard and other barriers to entry.
So how is the USA going to prevent people coming in over dry land or a shallow river?
A fence? Costs a ton per mile, it's kind of hard to build a fence in the middle of a river and Mexico has these strange and esoteric bits of technology known as wire cutters, ladders and shovels.
Drones? They still need pilots, maintenance, fueling, someone to interpret what they see. Poor weather grounds them, sometimes forcibly.
Sensors? The second time a border patrol unit or Sherrif's deputy gets dispatched to chase a coyote, they'll start to ignore the sensors.
Local residents? While people have every right to defend what is theirs, granting open season on other people is not exactly what the Founding Fathers envisaged.
Boots on the ground? Sure, it's doable. Expensive as hell, and people will still get through.
-
I'm so inspired by law breakers, too. :whistle:
-
"Close the border" is a lot like:
Prohibition
War on Drugs
......justification for huge government money, efforts and powers, to combat human nature and freedom.
With decades of minimal "interior enforcement" the immigrants, employers, teachers, law enforcement know it is all just "business as usual."
-
Securing the Border is a necessity if you desire to preserve America's culture, economy and ultimately its existence. Imagine that some force was flooding an indigenous people's lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners, and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land's culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.
However, in America, it is called "immigration policy" and is even embraced by many "self described" Conservatives on this board. Regarding the "cost," at the current time the average illegal immigrant household receives $14,387 in benefits more than they pay in taxes and this is before Obamacare.
We can secure the border if we truly choose to do so. That doesn't mean that there will be no illegal aliens, but that their numbers will be dramatically reduced. We do not completely enforce laws against drunk driving, rape, or murder either.
-
Securing the Border is a necessity if you desire to preserve America's culture, economy and ultimately its existence. Imagine that some force was flooding an indigenous people's lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners, and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land's culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.
However, in America, it is called "immigration policy" and is even embraced by many "self described" Conservatives on this board. Regarding the "cost," at the current time the average illegal immigrant household receives $14,387 in benefits more than they pay in taxes and this is before Obamacare.
We can secure the border if we truly choose to do so. That doesn't mean that there will be no illegal aliens, but that their numbers will be dramatically reduced. We do not completely enforce laws against drunk driving, rape, or murder either.
You don't understand. The best way to handle the situation is to say it's impossible to implement a perfect solution and do nothing.
I do the same thing all the time. In fact, Monday night, when it was -15F, (thank you global warming), my wife noticed that the seal around the doors was imperfect. The strike plate for the latch had frost on the inside of the house. That did it. If I couldn't have a perfect seal and I was losing heat anyway, why try. I opened all the doors and windows.
I think I'm ready for CONgress.
-
Securing the Border is a necessity if you desire to preserve America's culture, economy and ultimately its existence. Imagine that some force was flooding an indigenous people's lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners, and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land's culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.
The First Nations want a word with you. :tongue2:
-
I'm curious, just exactly how does one "close the border?" I keep hearing that phrase over and over again, but I've never heard anyone actually explain in real terms how that would be accomplished and, more to the point, what the cost would be.
Very easy and I think you know it. You close the border by stopping all the carrots that make them want to come here illegally. You don't pay welfare to illegal immigrants while taking money away from our fighting men and women in the military. Why do you think they started avoiding Arizona and heading to California or New Mexico or even Texas. Arizona VOTERS passed a series of very tough laws that made it very difficult for people to come into this state illegally and get freebies from the taxpayers in this state... so the solution is simple.. it isn't sending the people already here back and being "meanies" it is just cutting off the freebies spigot and making it clear like just about every other country on this planet of ours - you want to come here you come legally and you come in with something to offer to our society in the way of an education or money in your pocket or both so you are not a financial drag on this society.
-
Very easy and I think you know it. You close the border by stopping all the carrots that make them want to come here illegally. You don't pay welfare to illegal immigrants while taking money away from our fighting men and women in the military. Why do you think they started avoiding Arizona and heading to California or New Mexico or even Texas. Arizona VOTERS passed a series of very tough laws that made it very difficult for people to come into this state illegally and get freebies from the taxpayers in this state... so the solution is simple.. it isn't sending the people already here back and being "meanies" it is just cutting off the freebies spigot and making it clear like just about every other country on this planet of ours - you want to come here you come legally and you come in with something to offer to our society in the way of an education or money in your pocket or both so you are not a financial drag on this society.
:thumbsup:
-
I'm talking style not substance here.
If you want to go back to substance in a format other than attack style, I can do that. There are two issues at hand, Christie's presidential prospects and immigration. You seem to be focused on immigration.
That's because it's what the title of the thread contains....illegal immigrants.
As for Christie, I find him lacking. I dislike his bullying, and extreme self interest. Christie may be better than a Democrat, but it's not a clear superiority. As was said up thread, and I agree, Christie is likely to jettison anything for self interest. Which means with enough media pressure, Christie could be coerced into governing like a liberal Democrat. If Christie is the nominee, I'll have a very, very difficult time deciding what to do.
If Christie is the nominee....it's a no brainer between him and the Communists. Period.
As for immigration, that's a very confusing one. We have laws, and the laws are sufficient, if they were only enforced. Your view seems to be more emotion rather than calculation. Don't get me wrong, emotion should be part of the calculus, but it shouldn't be the sole determinant. We have millions of people who were lured here to provide cheap labor. Unfortunately, along with the hard workers came the criminals. I'm suspicious of amnesty because the last amnesty was such a sham. If I had my say, we would close the border first. Make it so Mexicans have to go through the same process as Indians, or Vietnamese, or Italians, or anyone else to enter the country. Put in place a real, verifiable work visa program. Those that have made a life here, give them the option to become American, or go home. Those that are criminal in their behavior, deport them. If they are to be deported, they can take their family, or leave them here, doesn't matter, but we don't need more criminals. That's how I would do it.
And like I said....my perspective up close is different than most here.
I regularly used contractors who employed illegals. Compared to the black or white employees, they showed up everyday and worked their a$$es off.
One had a son who was an all-star for their school in football, soccer and baseball. He had been brought here when he was 3 years old.
Are YOU going to be the one to tell him, "tough crap"....leave, when it's the only home he's known?
Pragmatism seems to be a lost art around here.
-
If Christie is the nominee....it's a no brainer between him and the Communists. Period.
Then we should nominate someone a heck of a lot better than Christie.
Period.
-
That's because it's what the title of the thread contains....illegal immigrants.
I wasn't scolding you for your focus, I was simply noticing. I am not against fluid conversation. You know, if you go by words in the title, most threads could be hijacked. I'm just saying...
If Christie is the nominee....it's a no brainer between him and the Communists. Period.
No, it's not. It's your opinion, and you're allowed to have it, but you know what they say about opinions.
And like I said....my perspective up close is different than most here.
I regularly used contractors who employed illegals. Compared to the black or white employees, they showed up everyday and worked their a$$es off.
One had a son who was an all-star for their school in football, soccer and baseball. He had been brought here when he was 3 years old.
Are YOU going to be the one to tell him, "tough crap"....leave, when it's the only home he's known?
Pragmatism seems to be a lost art around here.
You know what is really a lost art? Reading and comprehension. From my post that you quoted:
"Those that have made a life here, give them the option to become American, or go home. "
Is that your idea of telling someone "tough crap"? Look, I get it, you know some Mexicans, and you admire them. Your "up close and personal" gets tiresome. It's as if you're not too subtly trying to exert some sort of moral superiority because of your associations.
Mexicans are people. They are lured here, I said that, I get it. But, before you fix the leak, you have to turn off the water supply.
-
Then we should nominate someone a heck of a lot better than Christie.
Period.
For the past 25 years we have nominated moderates and only one has won the WH. I think it is high time the GOP voters give a actual conservative a try and see what happens.
Christie has more baggage than anyone I can think of running in recent history. If he wins it will be a huge disaster for the party and the country. The rest of the country is not New Jersey. In addition the very moment he would secure his nomination - which I have zero doubt was behind his dissing of Romney - the news media will bring all the baggage front and center. The interesting thing is just today on the MSN News Feed is a headline story about Christie being in the middle of the bridge scandal after he had denied having anything to do with it. The guy is at best a progressive Republican and not really a Republican at all.
-
For the past 25 years we have nominated moderates and only one has won the WH. I think it is high time the GOP voters give a actual conservative a try and see what happens.
Yeah.....nominate a Romney and over 5 million adolescent Republican voters decide to stay home.
But according to you....nominate a pure Conservative...(whatever the hell that means) and they'll win....even though Conservatives have been portrayed as extremists by the mainstream media and seemingly agreed upon by the populace.
The only way a 'pure' Conservative can be nominated and elected, is after the American People have suffered greatly.
....we're getting there.
Christie has more baggage than anyone I can think of running in recent history. If he wins it will be a huge disaster for the party and the country. The rest of the country is not New Jersey. In addition the very moment he would secure his nomination - which I have zero doubt was behind his dissing of Romney - the news media will bring all the baggage front and center. The interesting thing is just today on the MSN News Feed is a headline story about Christie being in the middle of the bridge scandal after he had denied having anything to do with it. The guy is at best a progressive Republican and not really a Republican at all.
LOL! How can you say it will be a huge disaster for the country when we have a f**king Marxist in the WH and another one waiting in the wings whose thesis was titled, "There's only the Fight!".....about her hero Saul Alinsky?
-
Mexicans are people. They are lured here, I said that, I get it. But, before you fix the leak, you have to turn off the water supply.
Exactly. I have no problem with Mexican's. My gardener is Mexican and I have personally gotten him three other jobs because he is good and he is reliable - he also is here LEGALLY. My best friend is Mexican and she and her husband are very successful business owners of two businesses - one in California and one in Florida. Her family came here legally and they are all citizens. I think her parents are wonderful people - her dad is the type of gentleman we only wish most older gentlemen in this country were - he goes out of his way to open the car door for his wife, his daughter and me. And.. they ALL (the entire family) get angry when you talk about amnesty. They make no bones about how they came here legally, learned English, got an education and became citizens. Most Mexicans who did all this are no more enamored of those who jumped the border than their gringo friends.
-
Yeah.....nominate a Romney and over 5 million adolescent Republican voters decide to stay home.
But according to you....nominate a pure Conservative...(whatever the hell that means) and they'll win....even though Conservatives have been portrayed as extremists by the mainstream media and seemingly agreed upon by the populace.
The only way a 'pure' Conservative can be nominated and elected, is after the American People have suffered greatly.
....we're getting there.
LOL! How can you say it will be a huge disaster for the country when we have a f**king Marxist in the WH and another one waiting in the wings whose thesis was titled, "There's only the Fight!".....about her hero Saul Alinsky?
I voted for Romney... even though her had Romneycare and didn't disavow it. I voted for McCain - who would be not a heck of a lot different than Obama. I will not vote for Christie - you can take that to the bank....
-
I voted for Romney... even though her had Romneycare and didn't disavow it. I voted for McCain - who would be not a heck of a lot different than Obama. I will not vote for Christie - you can take that to the bank....
Until there is an equally powerful 3rd party....I will vote for whomever the GOP nominee is.
My love of the country I was born into is what's important to me and my children and grandchildren.....not my personal ego.
-
The deal with kids though, is they had no part in whatever "crime" was involved with them winding up years later, stranded in America.
When I moved (back to) California in 1955 I found myself in a classroom, with several Hispanic students.
I'm still involved with a few, and to this day I have no idea if they were born here, or in Mexico. If born in Mexico, I have no idea if their parents came "legally."
I would support a "dream act" for young people.
-
Until there is an equally powerful 3rd party....I will vote for whomever the GOP nominee is.
My love of the country I was born into is what's important to me and my children and grandchildren.....not my personal ego.
I will vote for the Republican nominee, absent a viable electable 3rd party, which I don't expect.
Fickle online "conservatives" eventually turn on most of their own. Rubio, Ryan come to mind, but there have been many more.
It is so, so easy to be anonymous and online. You can say and claim so much, including a lot of unrealistic stuff.
-
I will vote for the Republican nominee, absent a viable electable 3rd party, which I don't expect.
Fickle online "conservatives" eventually turn on most of their own. Rubio, Ryan come to mind, but there have been many more.
It is so, so easy to be anonymous and online. You can say and claim so much, including a lot of unrealistic stuff.
Amen, T_S! :beer:
-
I will vote for the Republican nominee, absent a viable electable 3rd party, which I don't expect.
Fickle online "conservatives" eventually turn on most of their own. Rubio, Ryan come to mind, but there have been many more.
It is so, so easy to be anonymous and online. You can say and claim so much, including a lot of unrealistic stuff.
So far I've managed to hold my nose hard enough to vote the R ticket. At the least, as a matter of principle I will never, ever vote for a D, even if s/he is the only candidate running. All I can say is that I hope my "love" doesn't go completely unrequited.
-
[[ How else to respond to a fellow Conservative who thinks it's wiser to sit on your a$$ and stay home rather than cast a vote against the greater evil among us?
That worked really well in 2012 didn't it? ]]
I voted for Dole, I voted for McCain, I voted for Romney.
I'm tired of voting for losers. (And I'm talking about more than just being numerical "losers" in the ballot counting.)
When I became a Republican, it was because I realized that, at the time, the Republicans better represented my beliefs, values, and interests.
That was then.
This is now.
What's happened to the Republicans that once represented the interests of the Euro-middle class of conservative persuasion? They seem to be a disappearin' breed.
I will no longer be voting for presidential candidates that [to me] appear no more inclined to represent and defend my interests as do the democrats, or for go-along-get-along Congressional candidates that start drinking the Vichy water as soon as they lower their arms after taking their oaths of office.
The "greater evil" among us are the Republicans who claim they're going to represent us, and then promptly "cut deals" and collaborate with the rats -- deals that are nothing more than sellouts and surrenders.
At least we know what the 'rats think of us and what they intend for us.
So... call me any name you wish, you have my permission to use your highest and most sophisticated insults. Because if it's Chris Christie in 2016, I'm going to be doing exactly what you predict, and sit on my a$$ come election day, be it Hillary or high water.
If the Republicans want me to vote Republican, give me a Republican to vote for.
Mr. Christie ain't him!
-
This is completely off-topic, but Oceander asks:
[[ I'm curious, just exactly how does one "close the border?" I keep hearing that phrase over and over again, but I've never heard anyone actually explain in real terms how that would be accomplished and, more to the point, what the cost would be. ]]
Here's a post I put up in the old AOL "Issues" forum, way back on September 27, 1994:
===================
Sealing the Southern Border...
The following postings were recently observed in this topic (and another on immigration):
>> It is impossible to stop people from coming across our borders.
(I include the Canadian, although I know not every one does). It is a boondoggle along the lines of our wars on drug importation. It can't be done. Waste of money.
- and -
>> The Border Patrol can't stop immigrants. We can't stop drugs after spending hundreds of billions. How much will we waste trying to stop immigrants before we admit it doesn't work???
Poster: "Chyln"
Wrong, Mr. Chyln. ABSOLUTELY wrong.
I suggest you, and anyone else who thinks it can't be done, to pick up a copy of The New York Times dated September 14, 1994, and read the front page article, "A Rare Success at the Border Brought Scant Official Praise".
The article details the story of Silvestre Reyes, chief of the Border Patrol office in El Paso, and how he completely sealed off the Mexico-US border against illegal immigration in the El Paso area.
Once the second-busiest border crossing, with around 6,000+ crossings per day, in September 1993 Reyes surmised that it was useless and wasteful to try to catch illegal immigrants *after they already had crossed the border*. Instead, he positioned his officers right ON the border, to prevent them from crossing in the first place.
The name of the operation was "Operation Blockade", and it worked more sucessfully than anyone had hoped for. It is still working, one year later (the name of the operation has been changed to "Hold the Line", largely to placate complaints from Mexico re the notion of a "blockade" against its citizens, which of course it is). Yet Mr. Reyes' success was viewed with suspicion and downright hostility by senior officials of the INS in Washington. Here was a border patrol supervisor who actually believed in doing the job. One might surmise that the opposition Mr. Reyes' tactics were met with indicates that senior officials of the INS are not all that interested in "doing their job" - that is, assuring that only "legal" immigrants enter the United States from the southern border.
Before Mr. Reyes arrived in El Paso, the Times reports that the immigration situation there was "out of control":
"Thousands of illegal aliens were streaming across the Rio Grande without constraint. Border Patrol officers were chasing them through the streets, backyards and parking lots. Often the officers grabbed El Paso residents by mistake and demaded proof that they were citizens."
"There had been brawls and shootings, accusations of abuse, and loud public protests. The city had risen up in outrage, and a Federal judge had ordered the patrol to stop questioning people based solely on their appearance."
Prior to September 19, 1993, 10,000 or more Mexicans waded the Rio Grande each Sunday to be ready to appear for work the next morning. But on that Sunday, they found border patrol agents standing 100 yards apart for the entire length of the border. None could get through.
Reports the Times:
"... within a few days the residents of El Paso began to see other effects. The police reported that the number of auto thefts and petty crimes had fallen. Merchants reported that shoplifting had dropped off. And everyone noted that city streets were largely free of beggars and windshield washers."
"'By the end of the week,' said Al Giugni, district director for the I.N.S. in El Paso, 'it had grown bigger than life itself. Radio and television and newspaper people were talking about nothing else. And they did polls.' Though unscientific, the results were consistent; all of the polls showed public approval of 80 percent to 95 percent."
But Mr. Reyes' superiors in Washington were less than pleased with his innovative solution. He was told that his operation was exacerbating tensions with Mexico precisely at the time the Clinton administration was trying to get NAFTA through Congress. At one point, Reyes threatenened to call a news conference to name the official in Washington who might order him to cease Operation Blockade.
Washington backed down, and the blockade continues to this day.
In and around El Paso, no one gets across illegally, thanks to Mr. Reyes.
Indeed, we should apply Mr. Reyes' tactics to the ENTIRE Southern front. But more importantly, rather than a human barrier, we should consider constructing a physical barrier that cannot be breached. An immense construction project indeed, but one that is within the bounds of our technology and enterprise. Of course, there would be numerous checkpoints through which people could pass through legally in either direction.
I'm reminded of an old gospel song. It goes:
My heaven is so high, you can't get over it
So low, you can't get under it
So wide, you can't get around it
You gotta come in at the door
Since an enormous proportion of ALL those south of our border seem to regard America as "heaven" to which they hope to escape, we must regulate the onslaught trying to break into our nation. This doesn't mean they'll never be able to get in - but if they do, they'll literally have "to come in at the door" - LEGALLY.
===================
That was what I wrote, almost twenty years ago.
Twenty years ago, it might have worked.
But too much water over the dam now -- and too many illegals over the border.
It's nobody's fault but our own...
-
[[ Fickle online "conservatives" eventually turn on most of their own. Rubio, Ryan come to mind, but there have been many more. ]]
Rubio and Ryan aren't conservatives...
And there have been "many more" -- just like them!
-
[[ Fickle online "conservatives" eventually turn on most of their own. Rubio, Ryan come to mind, but there have been many more. ]]
Rubio and Ryan aren't conservatives...
And there have been "many more" -- just like them!
Only in the eyes of a faux conservative is Ryan a conservative. A study of his voting record tells the story... and this budget he spawned with Patty Murray seals the deal... anyone who would fund welfare for illegals and cut our soldiers and injured vets is no one I want anything to do with. Lucky my congressman is one of the few who read the bill and voted against it.