Go to An Unfortunate Outburst of Intense Patriotism
- Add a comment
- Go to What on Earth is President Bush Thinking?
What on Earth is President Bush Thinking?
WriterOfLight: I'll tell you what President Bush is thinking: He wants Hispanic voters to vote Republican instead of Democratic. I agree with your post and this compromise bill is horrible for America but both parties want the Hispanic vote very badly! The Hispanics are equivalent to the early 20th century European immigrants.
posted by
WavyDavy
on May 20, 2007 at 2:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Writer......
Corbin: Vote for Ron Paul in your state's Republican primary. It's as simple as that!
posted by
WavyDavy
on May 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Writer......
An excellent post.....
I am a Republican second....and a conservative first....we must stop this horrible bill! Then we need to focus on the Republican Party......
We have a two party system and the third parties are never going to be anything more than gnats buzzing around the rear ends of the donkeys and elephants. People who argue otherwise are only deluding themselves.
So, if two parties are going to control the machinery in DC from here to eternity, then conservatives and libertarians have to make a choice.........do they want to be part of the Republican party or not?
Some people would argue, quite correctly, that the GOP in DC is insulated, arrogant, and not true to conservative principles. Their response to that is to abandon the party.
I think they have it exactly backwards.
Once you leave the Republican Party, Republicans will no longer care what you think and let's face it: the Democrats don't care what anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy thinks about anything unless it's two months before an election. That means if conservatives and Libertarians opt out of the Republican Party, they lose their chance to have a meaningful impact on the political process.
To regain that impact we must...........remember how we did it in 64 and 80!
we need to do the same thing that Republicans did back then: take back our party for conservatism.
So, with that in mind, always look for ways to move the ball forward for conservatism.
* That means you vote for that squish on the ballot instead of the Democrat who doesn't agree with you on 90% of the issues. But,
* If that squish is challenged in a primary by a real conservative, vote for the conservative.
* Contribute money -- not to the squish, but to organizations and candidates that represent your beliefs.
* Volunteer to help out candidates and organizations that represent your beliefs.
* Vote in polls, send emails to your representatives, write blog posts, and look for ways you can make a difference.
In other words, get more involved in the Republican Party, not less, so that you will have the juice to change the Party for the better -- and let me tell you, the Republican Party desperately needs to be changed right now because it's failing conservatives and failing America.
We are definitely at a "fork in the road"....I hope we have enough stamina and courage to grab the reins and pull the party back to the right........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on May 20, 2007 at 4:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Ex turpi's questions
Welcome, Ex Turpi! (What does that name mean?)
To address your points, which are rendered in italics:
I'd hope you would control your emotions and get the facts.
Sorry, my human nature overrides my Vulcan ancestry from time to time. Re facts: Here are some links to coverage of the story:
The legislation has not passed the Senate as you imply.
My bad. 
Thanks for the correction. It was an agreement reached by the administration and the senate. Nonetheless, it still has not been subjected to the normal legislative process.
Please say how social Security will be negatively impacted by the legislation, if implemented?
Social Security is already on the brink of insolvency. I’m going out on a limb here, but I predict that, if it isn’t already in the agreement, the Democrats will try to add language granting illegals access to Social Security as part of their legalized status, whether or not they’ve paid into the system. I’m also skeptical of the agreement’s ability to stop the common practice of illegals having fraudulent or stolen social security numbers.
It was a democrat: President Clinton who reformed Welfare.
Yes. It was one of the few unquestionably good things he accomplished 
– with the vote of a Republican Congress. I’d love to see President Bush try to advocate such reforms with the crowd in Congress now.
Why would everyone who benefits from the proposal support the democrats? On what objective criteria is your conclusion based?
That’s not what I wrote. I am stating likelihood based on human nature and recent history. As a rule, liberal Democrats want more public assistance, hence more dependency on the State, whether that assistance is genuinely needed or not. Republicans as a rule favor restricting such assistance. Recipients quickly learn to vote themselves goodies by electing people who will give them more handouts.
Are you aware that some of the most conservative Republican Senators contributed to this proposal?
Yes. See remarks in the post about indignation towards Republicans.
What would you do with the undocumented immigrants who are here?
Aha! The crux of the issue. I would demand that they become full citizens (which raises the problem I raised in my post, how to get demonstrated lawbreakers to obey the law?). Those who refuse are to be deported. I would not allow them benefits of any kind, other than emergency services, unless they can prove their citizenship or other legal admittance to this country. If emergency services are needed, they will be given, then the recipient will be sent back to his or her native land. They will not receive Social Security or other benefits unless they are paying into those systems as legal visitors or citizens.
Are you an immigrant or the descendant of one?
Great-grandson of proud Irish immigrants who came to America legally, via Ellis Island.
The proposal may not be good; but spewing vitriolic diatribe does not make it better.
I am probably more conservative than you are; yet I hope I am more logical, less hate intense, and more reasonable that you are
Sorry, but when you are condemning opposing views as “vitriolic diatribe” and the one espousing those views as “hate intense,” you are not being reasonable yourself. You ask perfectly reasonable questions, but before you write off dissenting opinion as hateful and so forth, please present facts of your own, as your started to do here, to refute that with which you take umbrage.
posted by
WriterofLight
on May 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
What on earth...?
I'd hope you would control your emotions and get the facts.
The legislation has not passed the Senate as you imply.
Please say how social Security will be negatively impacted by the legislation, if implemented?
It was a democrat: President Clinton who reformed Welfare.
Why would everyone who benefits from the proposal support the democrats? On what objective criteria is your conclusion based?
Are you aware that some of the most conservative Republican Senators contributed to this proposal?
What would you do with the undocumented immigrants who are here?
Are you an immigrant or the descendant of one?
The proposal may not be good; but spewing vitriolic diatribe does not make it better.
I am probably more conservative than you are; yet I hope I am more logical, less hate intense, and more reasonable that you are.
Stay well; walk good my friend.
posted by
EX_TURPI
on May 19, 2007 at 3:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Writer of Light, This is a terrible compromise that pleases absolutely no
one side. Henry Clay would be proud.
posted by
kingmi
on May 19, 2007 at 3:37 PM
| link to this | reply