goldspider79

According to "America's Mayor," illegal immigration is "not a crime."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_el_pr/gi...

Just like when Kerry said in '04 that he would consult the UN on U.S. foreign policy matters, I think Rudy just took himself out of this race. Your thoughts?

The principle of my mortgage just passed the 20% threshold where I can cancel private mortgage insurance. However the bank notified me that they would have to assess the property to the tune of nearly $300 before they will cancel PMI. Is that standard practice, or am I getting hosed?

Does the government provide it? The military? Do we pay for it with taxes? Do we have to earn it?

Or are our liberties the inherent right of all Americans, as our founding fathers believed?

I suspect a lot of people here would fail high school physics.

As awful as Al Gore tells us oil companies are, wouldn't you think that he would have a hard time rationalizing his own family's fortune, gained through dealings with Occidental Petrolium? Why does he believe he can live off of fat oil profits, while telling the rest of us how the oil industry is damaging the environment?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_43_...

I found that article a FASCINATING read.

Are more than half of our senators really telling us that the wishes of convicted FELONS are more important than the needs of the American people???

I challenge ANYONE who supports legalizing felons to defend their position. I try to stay away from inflammatory rhetoric, but in my humble opinion, 51 senators just broke their vow to defend the constitution from enemies at home and abroad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_go_co/im...

With the indictment now filed, will Democrat leadership ask Rep. Jefferson to resign from the House? After all, they've demanded resignations from Republicans for far less.

1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system."

...when they've clearly already got their mind made up on the subject? What's the point of even answering?

Ever since WWII we have been warned by our politicians against an adversary that was an existential threat to our country. Until recently, it was the Soviet Union. Today that threat is Middle Eastern "terrorist" regimes.

Our politicians are empowered by the notions of fear and patriotism they instill in the populace by continuing the struggle against the enemy. It is no different in the Middle East. People are encouraged to hate the adversary, and lend support to the leaders who continue the fight.

Without an adversary, a government's power is greatly diminished. Just look at the former Soviet Union as evidence.

The current conflict benefits the leaders of each side, since the fight distracts the people from the social ills that plague their own respective homelands. They both retain power so long as they can keep the ignorant masses patriotic and/or devout.

What would the world be like if we stopped allowing our leaders to create adversaries with which to control us?

Have you changed how you live, work, and vote because of the threat of terrorism?

Do you believe civil liberties need to be sacrificed for the sake of preventing terrorism?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above, doesn't that suggest that the terrorists have succeeded?

How did illegal immigration become a civil rights issue? These are not American citizens we're talking about, and therefore aren't afforded the rights and privileges therof. Their very presence makes them all criminals. Why are WE, the American people, expected to cater to criminals and make them feel welcome? Why have we allowed certain groups to re-define the terms of this issue to portray US as the bad guys, and the criminals as the victims?

First of all, I'm a big fan of anyone who would give their time for a chance to defent their nation.

That said, however, I don't buy into the notion that we need to support the Iraq war because our soldiers are fighting for our freedom. The truth is, though, that our liberties haven't actually been threatened since WW2.

So why then has our military seen so much combat? Every conflict since WW2 has been about furthering our foreign policy, be it opposing the spread of communism or appealing to the humanitarian wishes of the United Nations.

If you ask me, I think we've been sending our soldiers abroad to die for causes that have little, if anything to do with preserving our liberties.

I find it especially ironic and distressing that our soldiers are fighting for the freedom of a nation that doesn't even understand the concept of individual liberty while our own way of life is being threatened by illegal immigrants and politicians who support them.

"Cut and run"

"Stay the course"

"Embolden our enemies"

Am I the only one tired of these three-word sound bytes that politicians use to simplify their opponents' opinions to a point where further discussion is futile?

Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of brevity too, when it's appropriate. But when world-impacting decisions are made based on an arguments of fewer than 10 syllables, I think maybe we should engage in more meaningful debate.

Thoughts?

1. Terrorist is killed in a raid by U.S. forces.

2. Friends/family are mad at U.S.

3. Friend/family member becomes terrorist.

4. Terrorist is killed in a raid by U.S. forces.

Without a doubt, the way to ultimately end terrorism is to try and kill all the terrorists, right?

Mouth-breathing conservative sheep? Or free-thinking, independent-minded liberals?

Just follow the money, I say. What are your thoughts?

And when is anyone in the media going to publicly call them out as the racist hypocrites they are?

They don't recognize the vast majority of Americans who oppose illegal immigration, but support legal immigration.

It's a shameless and intellectually dishonest tactic that IMHO has no place in a frank immigration reform discussion. I suppose, however, it makes them feel justified in calling Americans "racists".

Let's face it, they were elected with the expectation that they would end the war.

Now that the jockeying for votes has already begun, they are being pulled in two opposite directions.

If they don't fund the war, they risk losing moderate voters who don't necessarily support the war, but think the troops should get the resources they need.

If they do fund the war, with or without a withdrawal timetable, they will no longer be able to claim the anti-war high ground that won them the support of the more activist left.

They really can't strike a balance here. To me it looks like '08 is the Republicans' race to win. I won't, however, count out their ineptitude either.

Conservative Greed?

Liberal Envy?