Amnesty Bill Resurrected

[LutherCalvin]

This is the list of 15 GOP senators that hold the key to the amnesty bill debate. Asterisks indicate senators that are up for re-election:

* Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
* Cochran (R-MS)
* Coleman (R-MN)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Cornyn (R-TX)
* Craig (R-ID)
* Domenici (R-NM)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
* McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
* Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
* Warner (R-VA)

It will be interesting to see which of these senators vote to invoke cloture and then vote against the bill for political cover. They are the true hypocrites.

[Tom]

Whatever it takes to defeat it.
A vote for this bill is treason, and believe me, anyone who votes for it will pay.
That buffoon Bush has no political future, so he can screw the country all he wants. Come to think of it, he has no political past, either. A failure at home and abroad, a traitor, a liar, an embarrassment to the country. An insult to rutabegas everywhere.

Most in congress have not read it, are lying about it, and stand ready to dstroy America.

Bring the troops home - the real enemy is not Al Qeda - it is Washington DC.

If we need spill blood, it should in DC, not Baghdad.

We need regieme change here.

[Secretariat]

Whatever it takes to defeat it.
A vote for this bill is treason, and believe me, anyone who votes for it will pay.
That buffoon Bush has no political future, so he can screw the country all he wants. Come to think of it, he has no political past, either. A failure at home and abroad, a traitor, a liar, an embarrassment to the country. An insult to rutabegas everywhere.

Most in congress have not read it, are lying about it, and stand ready to dstroy America.

Bring the troops home - the real enemy is not Al Qeda - it is Washington DC.

If we need spill blood, it should in DC, not Baghdad.

We need regieme change here.

Tom,

Glad you've seen the light. But get ready to bend over. The amnesty thing is going to pass and GW will sign it with a big smile. Why? Because Bush wants cheap labor and is in the hand of big business. Why will Dems vote for it? Because they're courting the Hispanic vote, and 12 million new minority voters sounds real nice especially since more poor people tend to vote Democratic. Frankly, I hope very much the amnesty thing does NOT pass, but it will with chickenshit concessions.

I'm glad you're in favor of bringing the troops home. This absurd civil war has cost us way too many lives, cost way too much, and has done nothing to stabilize the Mid East. In fact quite the opposite. If in fact there ever were WMD's and they're in Syria, well then they're in way more dangerous hands than they ever were in Iraq.

[PaceAdvantage]

This absurd civil war has cost us way too many lives, cost way too much, and has done nothing to stabilize the Mid East. In fact quite the opposite. If in fact there ever were WMD's and they're in Syria, well then they're in way more dangerous hands than they ever were in Iraq.

Well, looks like you've wrapped everything up in a nice, neat package. Good for you!

[Tom]

You don't have a light, Sec.
No way I ever agree with your side. You were wrong from the begining. you're wrong now.
How dare you suggest it is not the DEMS behind all this crap to begin with. Just like 1986, and just like Teddy Fathead Kennedy has been dead wrong for 40 years. YOU guys area more gbehind this than Bush. He is just the latest flunky dancing to the beat of big business writting checks, and he is far too stupid to understand what he is doing. This is part of the dems master plan of control.

You know why I want to bring the troops home?
Because we NEED another 9-11 to wake us up once and for all, and with the polls saying 80% of the people think as they do, I say 80% of the casualties are acceptable.

So you know where you can shine your light.

[Secretariat]

You don't have a light, Sec.
No way I ever agree with your side. You were wrong from the begining. you're wrong now.
How dare you suggest it is not the DEMS behind all this crap to begin with. Just like 1986, and just like Teddy Fathead Kennedy has been dead wrong for 40 years. YOU guys area more gbehind this than Bush. He is just the latest flunky dancing to the beat of big business writting checks, and he is far too stupid to understand what he is doing. This is part of the dems master plan of control.

You know why I want to bring the troops home?
Because we NEED another 9-11 to wake us up once and for all, and with the polls saying 80% of the people think as they do, I say 80% of the casualties are acceptable.

So you know where you can shine your light.

Excuse me thinking you've seen the light. You choose to remain in the dark.

You still don't get this immigration deal. It's all about power. Economic vs voting power. GW has bent over for big business and they want cheap labor. The Dem's want poor minority voters who tend to vote democratic. Frankly, it's as simple as that. Ted Kennedy, GW are pawns to a much larger picture here. I'm surprised you don't see that. This is business vs voting blocs which is what makes it cross party lines. Staunch conservatives from the south in particular are dealing with voting blocs of white conservatives who are outraged at increasing hispanic numbers and feel a loss of potential voting power. They're right. Unions fear increased hispanics because it means cheaper wages and less competition for labor. It's an interesting dilemma because it tugs at both parties roots. But Ted Kennedy doesn't have hispanics poring over the Massachusetts border so he can pretend its a human rights issues which pleases the DLC to no end as it likely increases Dem voter rolls. GW is pressured by the Chamber of Commerce and big business that needs cheap labor to bust unions and keep blue collar wages lows. He'll always cave to that. The concessions will be window dressing, and he'll sign the bill with a big smile after throwing a couple billion to border security, but you've got 12 million new amnesty hispanics already in the country. Wake up, it's not about party unless you want it to be on this one. We areactually in agreement about what shoudl be done on this which is enforce the existing laws, and remove the carrots which make coming here attractive such as no Medicaid or Public Educatuon for non-citizens, and require a parent to become a citizen before a minor child can become a citizen except in exceptional circumstances. This immediately takes gealth care and education issues off the table, Also actually prosecute employers who hire illegals continually without necessary documentation. That will go a long way towards reducing illegal immingration.

I don't care your reason why you want the troops home. As long as you're in agreement that they should be home. Well said and well done. :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

You still don't get this immigration deal. It's all about power. Economic vs voting power. GW has bent over for big business and they want cheap labor. The Dem's want poor minority voters who tend to vote democratic. Frankly, it's as simple as that.
Sec - I believe it was your contention that the bill would sail through. These guys are so out of touch with the real world they might as well ask someone to "talk into the machine" as Strom Thurman did in the Clarence Thomas hearings in referring to a microphone.

Could anyone get any more putrid than Harry Reid in his attempt to politicize this mess?

[Secretariat]

Sec - I believe it was your contention that the bill would sail through.

No, it was my contention the bill would eventually pass. I hope I'm wrong, but unfortunately I think it will. GW is pressuring GOP senators, and the DLC is pressuring Dem senators. It's a significant statement to provide amnesty for 12 million illegals in this country. Most polls are against it, but big business is not. Big business will win.

[Tom]

Big Business on the one hand and dems looking for voters on the other.
Traitors all.

With Bush and Kennedy sucking on the big money teets.

[Snag]

I don't care your reason why you want the troops home. As long as you're in agreement that they should be home. Well said and well done. :ThmbUp:

Sec, I only hope that it is you that suffers the attach that is going to come when we do bring our troops home. You miss Tom's point and, I think, have your head in the sand about what is to come.

[Secretariat]

Sec, I only hope that it is you that suffers the attach that is going to come when we do bring our troops home. You miss Tom's point and, I think, have your head in the sand about what is to come.

As FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." If Al Queda had significant capability to strike us here it would have happened since 2001. Our southern border is porous, and the strategy of suicide bombers and roadside bombs could have easily been attempted here with or without Iraq. I'm much more concerned about the growing economic and military power of China, and the alienation of Russia than I am a bunch of guys hiding out in Northern Pakistan. We've had serious modern day troubles with the MidEast since the Crusades, and with the establishment of a Jewish state in the region it has put gasoline on the fire for the last 50 years.

btw.. Snag, it's pretty lame to "hope" that anyone here suffers an attack. I certainly wouldn't wish it on you and your family.

[PaceAdvantage]

If Al Queda had significant capability to strike us here it would have happened since 2001.

You forget to mention that the steps taken since 9/11 to make sure Al Queda can't strike us again so easily might have a little something to do with the following slogan I coined some time ago:

"U.S.A. & G.W.B. - Terror Free since 2001"

[Snag]

If Al Queda had significant capability to strike us here it would have happened since 2001.

How in the world can you make a statement like that?

President Bush says to "fightem there instead of here" and your kind point fingers and laugh. Keeping your head in the sand is not the way to go.

[Tom]

Like so much else, Bush has outsourced terror attacks. Terror-free since 2001, but how many billions spent and 3500+ dead, countless more wounded, and Bin Laden is still free, the Taliban is coming back, Iran is sponsoring terrorism all over the area......

The ones who died from 2500 - 3500......what did we get for that? What substantial progress was worth 1,000 lives? What is so much better today than it was as 2500?

If we are going to say this war is neccessary, then we had better start fighting it like it was. I do not believe we are.

[delayjf]

GW has bent over for big business and they want cheap labor.

What big business are you referring too?? I'm sure Microsoft, ExxonMobile, and Haliburton are not using any significant number of Illegals. I was not aware that there was a huge strawberry picking, car wash, lawn care, fast food lobby in DC. If anything these guys are pissed about raise in the minimum wage.

[Tom]

Meat packing uses a lot of illegals.
Makes you wonder if they are lax about those laws, how many sanitation laws get bypassed? :eek:

[JPinMaryland]

agriculture, building management, restaurants and banking are some of the leading industries behind this.

[GaryG]

Meat packing uses a lot of illegals.A few years back large meat packing plants were built in Dodge City and Garden Cits KS. The alarm was sounded (funny how they do that) and the towns quickly filled with illegals. The character of those towns has changed considerably in the intervening years.

[46zilzal]

go to any backstretch.

[Tom]

Is that where they get thier meat? :eek::eek::eek:


But I agree - and we should be cracking down their , too. If the Whitneys or whoever can't afford thier help, they should get the hell out of racing.

[PaceAdvantage]

If we are going to say this war is neccessary, then we had better start fighting it like it was. I do not believe we are.

I agree with you 100% there. We're overdue for some new thinking in the White House. It's unfortunate that the election is still over a year away....

GWB has had ample time to correct what has gone wrong in Iraq, but for some reason, we don't seem to be doing anything but dancing around in circles.

Give me Fred Thompson or Rudy. Doesn't matter which to me. Either one will do. Although I think I'm leaning more towards Fred. Can we put him in charge today?

[skate]

it's a frig....n Muttenheaded joke to think that the Democrates are not "also" interested in the Money from Big business.


if ya cant understand 'that' you would be either Naive OR stupid, maybe both.

[Tom]

Oh skate,
Truer words were never spoken.

[Secretariat]

You forget to mention that the steps taken since 9/11 to make sure Al Queda can't strike us again so easily might have a little something to do with the following slogan I coined some time ago:

"U.S.A. & G.W.B. - Terror Free since 2001"

Seriously PA. Do you think out southern border is secure? You don't think that Al Queda could have crossed the Mexican border and planted an IED on an interstate. We keep hearing how the southern border is NOT secure.

If Al Queda wanted to plant an IED on an interstate, OR load a car up with explosives and crash into a target one would think they could do that readily if the threat was signifcant. After all 911 was accomplished with box cutters and a bunch of Saudis.

[Secretariat]

President Bush says to "fightem there instead of here" and your kind point fingers and laugh. Keeping your head in the sand is not the way to go.

President Bush says a lot of things most of which are wrong hence his under 30% approval rating. My kind? You mean the great majority of people in this country now against the Iraq War, or the handful of fringe zealots like yourself.

[PaceAdvantage]

handful of fringe zealots like yourself.

Fringe zealots! LOL

You make me laugh...that's a good thing!

[PaceAdvantage]

Seriously PA. Do you think out southern border is secure? You don't think that Al Queda could have crossed the Mexican border and planted an IED on an interstate. We keep hearing how the southern border is NOT secure.

If Al Queda wanted to plant an IED on an interstate, OR load a car up with explosives and crash into a target one would think they could do that readily if the threat was signifcant. After all 911 was accomplished with box cutters and a bunch of Saudis.


Make up your mind man....first you state "If Al Queda had significant capability to strike us here it would have happened since 2001."

Now you state "If Al Queda wanted to plant an IED on an interstate, OR load a car up with explosives and crash into a target one would think they could do that readily if the threat was significant."

So either they have capability or they don't. We certainly know from experience that they have the capability, they have the desire, and from your description of the southern border, they have access.

Thus, I can only conclude that whatever measures GWB has put into place since 9/11 have been 100% effective in stopping a terrorist organization with the capability, the desire, and the access (your words) to achieve their goals. Maybe Michael Moore's next documentary can be about this achievement.

U.S.A. & G.W.B. - Terror Free Since 2001

[Tom]

President Bush says a lot of things most of which are wrong hence his under 30% approval rating. My kind? You mean the great majority of people in this country now against the Iraq War, or the handful of fringe zealots like yourself.


So what does that say about your democrat congress with a 23% rating - and Ding harry at 19%?

Should they aspire to reach Bush's higher level of apporval? Or is that asking too much? :lol::lol::lol:

btw, Bush is at 32-35 this week. Opening up on 'em.

[Tom]

Just heard that Dingy Harry and Scooter Libby are tied in approval ratings.:kiss:

[Tom]

Sec - PA...did you guys see the vieo lastnight of the "graduating class" of homacide bombers at Taliban University? 300 or so of them, some looked like 12 year olds.
Guess where they are planning on doing thier co-op work? :eek:

[GaryG]

Dearborn?

[Secretariat]

Make up your mind man....first you state "If Al Queda had significant capability to strike us here it would have happened since 2001."

Now you state "If Al Queda wanted to plant an IED on an interstate, OR load a car up with explosives and crash into a target one would think they could do that readily if the threat was significant."

So either they have capability or they don't. We certainly know from experience that they have the capability, they have the desire, and from your description of the southern border, they have access.

Thus, I can only conclude that whatever measures GWB has put into place since 9/11 have been 100% effective in stopping a terrorist organization with the capability, the desire, and the access (your words) to achieve their goals. Maybe Michael Moore's next documentary can be about this achievement.

U.S.A. & G.W.B. - Terror Free Since 2001

So many fallacies to address.

Let's start with your last one: "U.S.A. & G.W.B. - Terror Free Since 2001"

This is inaccurate.

There was a successful Islamist terrorist attack in the United States during the fall of 2002 called the “Beltway Snipers”, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, which killed ten people and wounded three more. For three weeks in October of 2002 they terrorized Maryland, Washington D.C., and Virginia, and mesmerized the local and national media.

John Muhammad had links with the terrorist organization Jamaat ul-Fuqra. Muhammad stated his sympathy with Osama bin Laden, and had a connection with Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The leader of Jamaat ul-Fuqra is associated with Al Qaeda, which was complicit in the murder of Daniel Pearl.

That's one.

Here's one a little more recently when a suicide bomber made an attempt to blow up a stadium in Oklanhoma filled with 84,000 people Fortunately, the bomb blew up before he got there, but he was within 100 yards of the stadium. GW did nothing to stop that one.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1138

So enough of that BS.

Now the second point.

"..and from your description of the southern border, they have access."

Of course they do. You've said as much on your complaints about the free and easy access of the southern border with Mexico when you've spoken about immigration. Why else would so many here want a border fence?

So now you seem to be the one contradicting yourself. Either GW's measures have been effective keeping out terrorists. If that's the case, then why the need for building a border fence. Make up your mind.

The truth is any terrorist organization can hit us, always could. That's the price of a free society. However, they do not pose as imminent a threat to the US that it is worth having 3500+ Americans killed in a civil war or 25000+ wounded. My point was why haven't they crossed the southern border in droves with terrorists setting IEDS's in the US as they are doing in Iraq. THe southern border is porous. Your inconsitent argument is that GW is keeping them out, yet somehow you think we are not keeping immingrants from crossing the southern border. You can't have it both ways.

I beleive they are a threat. That threat is NOT in Iraq but securing our own borders, and attacking the Al Queda leadership in Pakistan, not patroling as sitting ducks for IED's in an iraqi Civil War

[skate]

my polite side says, you have passi9on with inadequate dribble.:sleeping:

[PaceAdvantage]

Well Sec, we can argue back and forth what constitutes a terror attack.

But that's not the point.

Neither is it a point that the southern (and the NORTHERN) borders are most likely easy pickings for terrorists looking to enter the country illegally.

Something ELSE is stopping terror attacks from happening since 2001. Why did they bomb the London subway, yet leave the famed NYC subway system alone? Why hasn't anyone walked into a crowded mall during Christmas and blown themselves up? Why have 5 straight New Year's Eves in Times Square gone off without a hitch?

Why is this? Do you not give any credit to policies put into place since 9/11, either public policies or top secret policies that we will never be privy to?

Or do you continue to subscribe to the belief that it is just dumb luck that a major attack never followed 9/11 (as the news media was predicting in the hours and days following September 11, 2001). Or do you continue to believe that al-Queda is simply a very patient organization and that they are simply biding their time and can attack us as they please....they're just letting us twist in the wind?

Which is it? What do you truly believe?

[delayjf]

and attacking the Al Queda leadership in Pakistan,

Sec, I'm starting to like the way you think. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

So, if we have thwarted potential attacks here, then the idea of fighting them there and not here is not really true - They are still trying to come here, obviously. So let's just summerize what are knowns at this time:


Al Qeda is operating in Iraq and we are fighting them there.
Al Qeda is still trying to attack us here but so far we have prevented it
We are not securing our borders or ports, so if Al Qeda could be using porous borders to get in and attempt plots - unsuccessfully so far, but they only need be right once.
The head of the terror snake is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, graduating 300 new homacide bombers to send here.

It follows than, that ones were are fighting over there are not the same ones we have to fight over here, and in fact, the ones who we have to worry about fighting here are the same ones who succeeded on 9-11. So our major efforts and money are going towards fighting the ones who will not come here while the ones who will, and who have proven thier ability in the past, are going pretty much ignored. And when they succeeded on 9-11, it was with amatures, and now they have college graduates ready to come here.

Did I miss anything?

[bigmack]

Did I miss anything?
You're darn tootin' ya did.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/images.jpg

[Secretariat]

Well Sec, we can argue back and forth what constitutes a terror attack.

But that's not the point.

Of course it's a point. The Beltway snipers, the Heirich sucide bombing on Oklahoma, even the Va. Tech shooter could be classified as terrorist. You prefer to ignore those, or the adminstration's state department's own statistics showing terrorism increaing worldwide.

Neither is it a point that the southern (and the NORTHERN) borders are most likely easy pickings for terrorists looking to enter the country illegally.

Ah, beg to differ. It is a signficant point with easy access to the southern border providing the most inviting entrance for a foregin terrorist to enter the US easily.

Something ELSE is stopping terror attacks from happening since 2001. Why did they bomb the London subway, yet leave the famed NYC subway system alone? Why hasn't anyone walked into a crowded mall during Christmas and blown themselves up? Why have 5 straight New Year's Eves in Times Square gone off without a hitch?

Why is this? Do you not give any credit to policies put into place since 9/11, either public policies or top secret policies that we will never be privy to?

The questions you pose above are good ones. Why haven't they done these things? I look at the number of warnings that took place prior to 911 which were ignored. I think once a society is hit as we were on 911, that naivete that we are invincilble was shattered. NORAD was sleeping, and GW was having a barbecue. The warning signs were there to prevent guys from boarding jets with box cutters. Of course after a massive attack like that on our country, we are a more vigilant society, and the establishment of homeland security was to facilitat better communicaiton among branches of government, but this is after the fact. The screening at airports is after the fact and we're all grateful it is now in place. But let's remember this is an adminstration that wanted to sell our port security to an Arab nation. This is an administration that has actually cut border security early on and has done absolutely next to nothing to address illegals crossing our borders. How many actual successful prosecutions of terrorists has taken place since 911 despite all the hoopla? The question is why haven't there been more if in fact we're catching all these terrorists through these policies.?

Or do you continue to subscribe to the belief that it is just dumb luck that a major attack never followed 9/11 (as the news media was predicting in the hours and days following September 11, 2001). Or do you continue to believe that al-Queda is simply a very patient organization and that they are simply biding their time and can attack us as they please....they're just letting us twist in the wind?

Which is it? What do you truly believe?

I beleive Al Queda was damaged by our initial invasion of Afghanistan. However, I beleive Al Queda is a patient organization as exhibited by the time they've waited previously for big attacks. When one looks at the take over of the Gaza by Hamas, the democratcially elected Hamas, the civil war in iraq, the nuclear saber tattling of Iran, the inability of Pakistani troops to catch Bin Laden, the Mid East is more fragmented than it was before 911.

To be truthful even if Bin Laden does not attack the US directly, he has led this nation to spend a half a trillion dollars and lost 3500+ lives, and 25000+ wounded in the process. We've lost the respect of our allies and our dollar has become devalued in world currency.

I think Al Queda will strike here again. Even Bush has said it will happen. The fact that the WTC was attacked in 93 and it didn't occur again until 8 years later shows they are patient.

The news media was predicting an attack after 911 because this country and administration was caught off guard. They didn't know what was coming next. We as a nation were naive and paid the price. They will attempt to strike again. We've got guys in missle silos (and i know one) who drill continually for a nuclear attack on thi country, and they're never told if it's real or fake. My friend had to push that button every day not knowing if it was a drill or real. He does it every day. Our airports and NORAD were not as throughly prepared. Hopefully, they are now.

btw.. a sucide bomber accidentally blowing up within 100 yards of a stadium in Oklahoma with 84,000 people I do consider a major attack. You'd have thought it would have got a little news coverage.

[lsbets]

Sec - we had a thread on this when it happenned. It disappeared from the news pretty quickly:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22880&page=1&pp=15&highlight=oklahoma+suicide

[Tom]

I think you are reaching with the VA shooter.

[skate]

agriculture, building management, restaurants and banking are some of the leading industries behind this.

and don't forget TRUCKING.

as a mater of fact, trucking connectas with ALL other business (even RR).

also, they have a real nice (three story?) building in the DC area and guess what that building is for. how many lobby guys can say that?

organidized, oh yeh baby!:cool:

[Tom]

I agree - way too many of these truckers getting in here illegally!

[JustRalph]

Sec - PA...did you guys see the vieo lastnight of the "graduating class" of homacide bombers at Taliban University? 300 or so of them, some looked like 12 year olds.
Guess where they are planning on doing thier co-op work? :eek:

I wondered to myself........... "self, where are the guys who failed to grad?"

Then it hit me............."they are all over the place!" :lol:

[Tom]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

[JustRalph]

http://www.avpress.com/n/28/0628_s3.hts

Illegals tab reaches $35 million
This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press on Thursday, June 28, 2007

Illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County during May collected $35.1 million in welfare and food stamp allocations, 5th District County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said in his monthly announcement of the Department of Public Social Services' accounting of how much it pays out to people who are in the United States illegally.

~more at the link~ ** more on medicare etc...........