Anyone for Obama?

[milehighassassin]

MileHigh - Dude just out of curiosity. How old are you? I'm not trying to be insulting here but I just can't help but wonder. My guess is 19 - 22 yrs old.

29

Why does that matter?

 

[milehighassassin]

???

By writing within my quote you make it really hard to reply (just so you know)

I stand by what I said, we do NOT give enough in foreign aid, once again... the United States gives less money when compared to % of GDP than pretty much any other developed country.
0.15% is a joke.


About Iraq, I've talked with soldiers that have came back, and I don't read one news source. I don't always read mainstream news. We are not wanted in Iraq, what are we accomplishing? Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, get the ****k out of the place. Concentrate on Afghanistan.

Health care needs fixed, it is getting to the point that only the wealthy have health care. I am not saying the government should be in control of it, but do you REALLY trust YOUR life with an (for profit) insurance company?

I don't.


Road less areas.... well when you live in Colorado and see all the overdeveloping I have seen, I tend to think some road less/undevelopable areas would not be such a bad idea.

I am not ready to jump on the global warming bandwagon but I can say that humans do effect the environment. My stepfather who has asthma can tell the air quality in Denver and in more remote areas of the state. The air literally effects how he feels. To simply say that humans don't change anything within the world, to me is crazy.

I know I will sound Liberal for that, but what is wrong with preserving our environment?
I personally like hunting and fishing in the outdoors, I would like to be able to continue to enjoy it.

Do I think we should have a complete lock down on pollution from cars, factories, etc? No

I do think we should use technology and do what we can to keep our air and water clean. I do think there is a happy medium.


I am really somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative (Independent).


Everyone in here seems to be quick to ask questions and criticize, but none of the question I have asked, have been answered. What are your solutions other than slam Obama.

What can McCain do that is so great? What are his plans for Iraq? How is he going to change the economy?

 

[milehighassassin]

Here is how McCain is weaseling out of the bill he supported and helped draw up:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/new-mccain-fund-gets-around-donation-limits/

He can't even follow the rule/law that he made up.
Fiscal responsibility there.

Also, want to be talking about preachers? Look at McCain's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The All-White Elephant in the Room

By FRANK RICH
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally has made many other outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”

Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

When Rudy Giuliani, still a viable candidate, successfully courted Pat Robertson for an endorsement last year, few replayed Mr. Robertson’s greatest past insanities. Among them is his best-selling 1991 tome, “The New World Order,” which peddled some of the same old dark conspiracy theories about “European bankers” (who just happened to be named Warburg, Schiff and Rothschild) that Mr. Farrakhan has trafficked in. Nor was Mr. Giuliani ever seriously pressed to explain why his cronies on the payroll at Giuliani Partners included a priest barred from the ministry by his Long Island diocese in 2002 following allegations of sexual abuse. Much as Mr. Wright officiated at the Obamas’ wedding, so this priest officiated at (one of) Mr. Giuliani’s. Did you even hear about it?

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

This year Mr. McCain has called for a respectful (i.e., non-race-baiting) campaign and has gone so far as to criticize (ineffectually) North Carolina’s Republican Party for running a Wright-demonizing ad in that state’s current primary. Mr. McCain has been posing (awkwardly) with black people in his tour of “forgotten” America. Speaking of Katrina in New Orleans, he promised that “never again” would a federal recovery effort be botched on so grand a scale.

This is all surely sincere, and a big improvement over Mitt Romney’s dreams of his father marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Up to a point. Here, too, there’s a double standard. Mr. McCain is graded on a curve because the G.O.P. bar is set so low. But at a time when the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that President Bush is an even greater drag on his popularity than Mr. Wright is on Mr. Obama’s, Mr. McCain’s New Orleans visit is more about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy.

Mr. McCain took his party’s stingier line on Katrina aid and twice opposed an independent commission to investigate the failed government response. Asked on his tour what should happen to the Ninth Ward now, he called for “a conversation” about whether anyone should “rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.” Whatever, whenever, never mind.

For all this primary season’s obsession with the single (and declining) demographic of white working-class men in Rust Belt states, America is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines. The Census Bureau announced last week that half the country’s population growth since 2000 is due to Hispanics, another group understandably alienated from the G.O.P.

Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.

 

[milehighassassin]

McCain on the Deficit:

Asked About the Deficit, McCain Cites Reagan’s Example
By MICHAEL COOPER
WESTPORT, Conn. – When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth – and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan.

There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending.

The exchange occurred at a town-hall-style meeting held in a tent outside Bridgewater Associates, an investment firm. A member of the audience stood up and asked Mr. McCain, who has called for balanced budgets, how he plans to do it.

“Basically, which is it?” the man asked Mr. McCain. “Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?”

Mr. McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy – and cited President Reagan.

“I don’t believe in a static economy,’’ Mr. McCain said. “I believe that when there’s stimulus for growth, when there’s opportunity, when people keep more of their money — and the government is the least efficient way to spend your money — that economies improve.’’

“When Ronald Reagan came to office,’’ he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, “we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I’ve got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn’t raise taxes, and we didn’t cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy, and by the way, Jack Kennedy also did that as well – and so my answer to it is a growing economy. And I think you best grow the economy by the most efficient use of the tax dollar.’’

Mr. McCain – who has said that he wants to balance the budget while making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cutting additional taxes, and keeping troops in Iraq – said: “I believe we can grow this economy, and reduce this deficit.’’

He said that he expected expense in Iraq to decline as the Iraqis shoulder more of the burden, and he also hinted at some cuts in federal programs.

He noted his opposition to the expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit, which he voted against. “Now you are paying for my prescription drugs,’’ he said. “Why should that be? Why should that be? Why should that be?”

But he said he thinks the problems can be solved. “Is it going to be tough? Yes. It’s going to be very, very tough.’’

Earlier, when he was asked if he plans to resign from the Senate this summer to make it easier for a Republican to win the election to succeed him, Mr. McCain said: “No, I will not. I have every confidence that there are a number of Republicans who would be elected. I do not envision a scenario of resigning my seat.’’

But then, on reflection, he seemed to open the door to the idea at least a bit. “But I would go back and think about it, and think about the scenario that you just described,’’ he said. “Right now my intentions are to remain in the United States Senate. ‘’

McCain Quotes:

I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.

Economics is not my strong suit.

How about foreign policy?
He doesn't know the difference between Suni and Shia:

en. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan_1.html


Obama's comments on this:

Now we know what we'll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer. Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.

National Debt:

I know it is small.

So much for the Republican thought of small government. They are quite the opposite now.

 

[milehighassassin]

For those that don't know...
No Iraq/Al Quida link
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/29959.html
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.

The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.

According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 — the last before the Iraq invasion — Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.

An earlier study based on the captured Iraqi documents, released by the Joint Forces Command in March 2006, found that a militia Saddam formed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the Fedayeen Saddam, planned assassinations and bombings against his enemies. Those included Iraqi exiles and opponents in Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite communities.

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq. What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown, however, according to the earlier study.

The new Pentagon study isn't the first to refute earlier administration contentions about Saddam and al Qaida.

A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi, said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative.

 

[Ollie]

We are at war (just in case you forgot).
The ability to balance the budget during war is impossible if you want to win, thus the dems should have no problem since they seem to be more interested in loosing.

Roadless areas, much like wilderness areas are needed. I don't think anyone has said they arn't. The problem you run into with Liberals (and WOW is Obama a liberal) is they use things like the Roadless rule and wilderness as an excuse to shut it all down. I live in colorado and have seen more damage done by hikers and campers than atv's and snowmobiles. As for the pictures, whoopie, I can surf the net and find pics showing what ever I want. That is like taking a poll, you can show what ever you want.

This discussion is just going in circles.
You all have fun, I am done.

 

[Anti-Hero]

Yes the health system is messed up My taxes go to help people that are not citizens in this country, or that are too lazy to get a job and pay for insurance. BS i say.

 

[milehighassassin]

We are at war (just in case you forgot).
The ability to balance the budget during war is impossible if you want to win, thus the dems should have no problem since they seem to be more interested in loosing.

Roadless areas, much like wilderness areas are needed. I don't think anyone has said they arn't. The problem you run into with Liberals (and WOW is Obama a liberal) is they use things like the Roadless rule and wilderness as an excuse to shut it all down. I live in colorado and have seen more damage done by hikers and campers than atv's and snowmobiles. As for the pictures, whoopie, I can surf the net and find pics showing what ever I want. That is like taking a poll, you can show what ever you want.

This discussion is just going in circles.
You all have fun, I am done.

This is going in circle but you are the one that makes the lame and stupid remark about Dems that don't want to win the war. Come on now, why would anyone want that. Leaving Iraq does not equal losing the war. There is no reason to be in Iraq. The worthless war is killing us economically, and that is what you missed. Leave Iraq and we will have a lot more money that we could use or save.

 

[Anti-Hero]

This is going in circle but you are the one that makes the lame and stupid remark about Dems that don't want to win the war. Come on now, why would anyone want that. Leaving Iraq does not equal losing the war. There is no reason to be in Iraq. The worthless war is killing us economically, and that is what you missed. Leave Iraq and we will have a lot more money that we could use or save.

20million beaners sending cash to thier homeland and raping America is killing our country. It is funny just above you preached the pollution BS but then Saddamnit and the war is a waste, so Chemical warfare that was used was not pollution or his b grade phrama plants? Oh yeah thats right Iraq singed the Montreal Protocol.

 

[ruffryder]

20million beaners sending cash to thier homeland and raping America is killing our country.

Killing our country? Sure dude, having them all work here for substandard wages, providing a gigantic work force so companies can compete better and make more money. Sure sounds like killing to me. I understand it is easy to blame all our problems on Mexicans, but they are here because we (Americans) want them to be here.

It is funny just above you preached the pollution BS but then Saddamnit and the war is a waste, so Chemical warfare that was used was not pollution or his b grade phrama plants? Oh yeah thats right Iraq singed the Montreal Protocol.

Pollution bs? I know I like drinking nasty water and breathing in crappy air.... So you are trying to justify going after Saddam for his pollution habits. Sure...

 

[khaddon2110]

Killing our country? Sure dude, having them all work here for substandard wages, providing a gigantic work force so companies can compete better and make more money. Sure sounds like killing to me. I understand it is easy to blame all our problems on Mexicans, but they are here because we (Americans) want them to be here.

we want workers to fill jobs on a temp basis, and then we want them to leave....

all the issues you listed there could be solved by a temp worker program....wages, work force....

I have no problem with our southern friends that would like to come here, legally, orderly, and temporarilly, to fill positions that are waiting for them. the problem is the killing of our country through the draining of all the govt services and resources they consume through there illegal occupation of our country.

 

[ruffryder]

we want workers to fill jobs on a temp basis, and then we want them to leave....

no, that is you! A lot of the jobs they are doing are outside of the seasonal farming and construction trades. Lots more.

all the issues you listed there could be solved by a temp worker program....wages, work force.... .

Were would you get the workers? The Mexicans aren't displacing that many workers. They are filling the void.

I have no problem with our southern friends that would like to come here, legally, orderly, and temporarilly, to fill positions that are waiting for them. the problem is the killing of our country through the draining of all the govt services and resources they consume through there illegal occupation of our country.

Again, I don't understand where the draining is coming from. I guess I look at it from the net stand point. Yes they send money back, and yes they use some of our resources, but what about the people higher up from them that are making more money by using them as a work force? They make more money and pay more in taxes. The money they save by not spending top dollar for labor is used elsewhere.

So if the labor force was replaced with Americans at a higher wage, a lot of stuff would cost more. Is the increase in cost of goods and services more (on a per person basis, using an average American) than what we pay extra for the resources used from Mexicans? I would think that it is close anyways.

 

[Ollie]

Come on now, why would anyone want that. Leaving Iraq does not equal losing the war. There is no reason to be in Iraq. The worthless war is killing us economically, and that is what you missed. Leave Iraq and we will have a lot more money that we could use or save.

Didn't we learn anything from Afganistan??
If we pull out and leave it is tantamount to surrender. It may be messed up that we are there, but we can't leave till the job is done.

A little history for ya on the middle east.
The middle east countries begged us to go in and help during the Russian invasion of Afganistan. SO we did. We sent in people to trian them and arms so they could fight. They didn't want soilders, just weapons. We went, we helped. The people asked us to stay and help rebuild the country but the "Rulers" (I use the term loosely since no one was sure who was in charge) wanted us out. So we left.
They then started chanting how we abandoned them and declared holy war on us for leaving them. The taliban moved in and took over the country because of the vaccum we left behind.

Now you advicate the EXACT SAME THING for Iraq.
What makes you think this will be any different now than it was then?



ruffryder
""Killing our country? Sure dude, having them all work here for substandard wages, providing a gigantic work force so companies can compete better and make more money. Sure sounds like killing to me. I understand it is easy to blame all our problems on Mexicans, but they are here because we (Americans) want them to be here.""

Yes they are killing our country. They force down wages making it harder for working class people to make a living. They drive americans out of an area, they have to move to find a place that they can make a living wage to support their families, then ICE comes in and arrests the criminals and all the liberals come out crying about nobody being there to do the jobs. They sponge off our social programs, an independant study done in (either LA or San Diego) showed that 25% of all social spending was going to illigals.

Our schools are over crowded with childeren that don't speak english and don't want to learn. In Milliken they have so many illigal aliens in the schools they wanted to change the language from english to spanish because it would be easier to teach americans to speak spanish than to FORCE the illigals to speak english. We had to fire the entire school board and threaten to have all funding pulled to stop that.

The hospitals along the boarder are closing because they are doing so much free work for illigals they can't afford to stay open.

I am so sick of liberals and ignorant people telling me they do jobs americans won't do. You show me ONE job americans won't do. The employers just don't want to pay them.

We did this whole amnesty thing in 86. You all might be too young to remember what happened. The 1 million they told us were going to get amnesty turned into 3 million which prompty brought in another 24 million relatives. The reason they gave the amnesty was for the farmers. Guess what, the people that got amnesty promptly left the fields and took better jobs and in came 12 million more criminals.

AND YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN!!
WAKE UP!!

My god what do they teach you kids in school.
LEARN YOUR HISTORY.

 

[ruffryder]

Didn't we learn anything from Afghanistan??
If we pull out and leave it is tantamount to surrender. It may be messed up that we are there, but we can't leave till the job is done.

A little history for ya on the middle east.
The middle east countries begged us to go in and help during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. SO we did. We sent in people to train them and arms so they could fight. They didn't want solders, just weapons. We went, we helped. The people asked us to stay and help rebuild the country but the "Rulers" (I use the term loosely since no one was sure who was in charge) wanted us out. So we left.
They then started chanting how we abandoned them and declared holy war on us for leaving them. The Taliban moved in and took over the country because of the vacuum we left behind.

Now you advocate the EXACT SAME THING for Iraq.
What makes you think this will be any different now than it was then?

I don't think they were the ones that were begging. Or at least our arm didn't have to get twisted very hard. We were fighting communism, and the battlefield happened to be there at the time. We weren't there for Afghanistan, we were there to stop the commies...

""Killing our country? Sure dude, having them all work here for substandard wages, providing a gigantic work force so companies can compete better and make more money. Sure sounds like killing to me. I understand it is easy to blame all our problems on Mexicans, but they are here because we (Americans) want them to be here.

Yes they are killing our country. They force down wages making it harder for working class people to make a living. They drive americans out of an area, they have to move to find a place that they can make a living wage to support their families, then ICE comes in and arrests the criminals and all the liberals come out crying about nobody being there to do the jobs. They sponge off our social programs, an independant study done in (either LA or San Diego) showed that 25% of all social spending was going to illigals.

Our schools are over crowded with childeren that don't speak english and don't want to learn. In Milliken they have so many illigal aliens in the schools they wanted to change the language from english to spanish because it would be easier to teach americans to speak spanish than to FORCE the illigals to speak english. We had to fire the entire school board and threaten to have all funding pulled to stop that.

The hospitals along the boarder are closing because they are doing so much free work for illigals they can't afford to stay open.

I don't disagree that there are problems at the border towns. But to extrapolate that to problems with Mexicans in the entire US is too much.

I am so sick of liberals and ignorant people telling me they do jobs americans won't do. You show me ONE job americans won't do. The employers just don't want to pay them.

Kind of a chicken or egg argument. I won't dig a trench for $3 bucks and hour, but I will dig one for a long time at $500 bucks an hour. All I know is that when looking around, there is a lot of Mexican labor, and there are help wanted signs all around too. To blame it all on employers is not correct. If employers charged more for there services/products, then they could loose out on business. Increase the cost of the goods/labor enough and the jobs will just move overseas, screwing everyone.

This is a very complicated situation. Shipping off the Mexicans does not seem like a viable solution, and has the potential to hurt more Americans in the long run.

We did this whole amnesty thing in 86. You all might be too young to remember what happened. The 1 million they told us were going to get amnesty turned into 3 million which prompty brought in another 24 million relatives. The reason they gave the amnesty was for the farmers. Guess what, the people that got amnesty promptly left the fields and took better jobs and in came 12 million more criminals.
AND YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN!!
WAKE UP!!

What happened to the people that got amnesty that left the fields? Did they prosper or are they the ones that are bringing down the economy still. I think since they got better jobs, they moved up the social ladder and became more productive citizens of the USA. I would think there better jobs would include taxes too.

My god what do they teach you kids in school.
LEARN YOUR HISTORY.

If you think immigration policy during the Reagen administration is taught in high school, you are mistaken.

 

[logjammin]

Kind of a chicken or egg argument. I won't dig a trench for $3 bucks and hour, but I will dig one for a long time at $500 bucks an hour. All I know is that when looking around, there is a lot of Mexican labor, and there are help wanted signs all around too. To blame it all on employers is not correct. If employers charged more for there services/products, then they could loose out on business. Increase the cost of the goods/labor enough and the jobs will just move overseas, screwing everyone.

I "chatted" with a small business owner about this. He said he couldnt get good workers because he couldnt bid the work high enough to pay for it. He was afraid work he wanted would go to a different company. He couldnt find a decent labor force to stay with him to save his life. And the work did go to a different company. They treated their employees better, payed more, which got a better workforce that did better work so they always got the winning bid. You get what you pay for. Right to work states are what is effin up everything, not immagrants! There is a sign on the WA/ID border that says " If the right to work is so great, why are you coming to Washington".

 

[khaddon2110]

no, that is you! A lot of the jobs they are doing are outside of the seasonal farming and construction trades. Lots more.

I understand they are needed to fill jobs, but they also need to honor our current laws and leave, just like the majority of citizens of this country believe.

Were would you get the workers? The Mexicans aren't displacing that many workers. They are filling the void.

i would get them from the countries that would follow our laws on an organized temporary worker program. They would be guaranteed employment for a given time period and could come as often and frequently as they like.

Again, I don't understand where the draining is coming from.

If you don't see it then you are not looking..... schools spend millions in ESL programs that are cutting our kids sports, and music programs. I now have pay $65 per sport, per child.....they are talking about cutting the music entirely ... you tell me illegals don't drain the system

ER's are losing millions.

Millions in insurance claims due to uninsured mexican drivers causing wrecks because they can't drive.

And I have to listen to their stupid music while sitting at a red light because they refuse to roll up the damn window

 

[Ollie]

At no time have I said all mexicans are bad for the country.
I ONLY have problems with the ones that break our laws, demand full access to our social programs and legal status just because they happen to have succeeded in breaking the laws to begin with.

What happened to the first 3 million you ask.
They were the begginning of the mass invasion you see now. Haven't we learned that when you reward bad behavior you get even more bad behavior. You don't get rid of criminals by pandering to them. You get rid of them by enforcing the laws and making the penalty so steep they won't do again.

The whole, I have to hire criminals to be able to compete is BS.
If the criminals were removed across the board (the save act) it would level the playing field and you could compete while paying a living wage.

As for "shipping them off won't work" arguement. you don't have to "ship them off". All you have to do is sign onto the save act and give it 5 years. The job market dries up and you are left with people that you REALLY don't want here. Everyone always says there are 2 options, round em up like cattle or give them amnesty. BS. Put the Save Act in place and enforce it. Problem will solve it'self.

It is not a complex problem. It is politicians that have decided they want votes more than they want to enforce the laws of this country and protect the citizens of this country.

We went to war sept 11, 2001 because 3000 people were killed. Since that same day over 70,000 americans and LEGAL immigrants have been killed by criminal immigrants. Either thru murder, car wrecks etc.. What do our politicians want to do to protect us from this? make em US citizens then it's no big deal.

They will grant amnesty over my dead body.
If we need more workers, get the criminals out so we can see if we really do. If we do, increase the visa system to bring them in legally.

If they don't have the moral fiber and integrity to come in legally, I don't give a darn what happens to em once their here. And spare me the "think of their childeren" statement. That is their job and if they are willing to put their kids thru it, I am willing to let em. I don't see anyone crying when a car jacker goes to jail that has kids, what about the mugger? they both are just trying to better their lives. The whole works are criminals and should be treated as such.

 

[milehighassassin]

Didn't we learn anything from Afganistan??
If we pull out and leave it is tantamount to surrender. It may be messed up that we are there, but we can't leave till the job is done.

A little history for ya on the middle east.
The middle east countries begged us to go in and help during the Russian invasion of Afganistan. SO we did. We sent in people to trian them and arms so they could fight. They didn't want soilders, just weapons. We went, we helped. The people asked us to stay and help rebuild the country but the "Rulers" (I use the term loosely since no one was sure who was in charge) wanted us out. So we left.
They then started chanting how we abandoned them and declared holy war on us for leaving them. The taliban moved in and took over the country because of the vaccum we left behind.

Now you advicate the EXACT SAME THING for Iraq.
What makes you think this will be any different now than it was then?

The Middle East countries NEVER begged us to come help. We took it upon ourselves to do it because we were afraid about the Big Red Machine (Communists) moving South. We only helped because we felt it was in our best interest. It was all part of the cold war.

The war we fought there was mostly covert. Iran Contra... ever hear about it? It was illegal war in which we fought both sides. Why? To make money and sell arms. A lot of people got rich during that time.


That is just it, we ****ed up Iraq. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we went in there. Now it is a breeding ground for them. We dump trillions of dollars into a war we cannot win. We are trying to force ideology on them and they don't want it. While American Troops die and Americans are suffering through the economy a few people are getting rich from the contracts that are rebuilding that country with American Tax payer money.

9/11 and Iraq/Saddam have nothing to do with each other, but some how our politicians managed to make the public think the opposite.

 

[milehighassassin]

We went to war sept 11, 2001 because 3000 people were killed. Since that same day over 70,000 americans and LEGAL immigrants have been killed by criminal immigrants. Either thru murder, car wrecks etc.. What do our politicians want to do to protect us from this? make em US citizens then it's no big deal.

I can find no evidence that 70,000 people have been killed by criminal immigrants. Care to show me some proof?

 

[XC700116]

29

Why does that matter?

Just trying to gain a little perspective on where you are coming from. I too am 29. My views on many things have changed over the last 10 years drasticly with age many times your views will change through different experiences.