Post by: Desertdog on March 12, 2008, 11:08:18 AM
By Ken Herman
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/03/11/bush_fairness_d.html
In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said theres nothing fair about the so-called Fairness Doctrine that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.
The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think its time to bring it back.
Perish the thought, Bush told the religious broadcasters in the following passage that ends with a veto promise.
This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - Americas airways - stay open to those who preach the Good News. The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.
I mention this because theres an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washingtons definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they dont like.
We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they dont agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They dont acknowledge that you are the balance & The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, were strengthened by diversity of opinions.
If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto whats called a discharge petition, that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.
I do want to thank (Indiana Rep.) Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden (of Oregon), for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But Ill tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, Im going to veto it.
Permalink | Comments (322) | Post your comment |
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2008, 11:10:56 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 12, 2008, 11:13:28 AM
People like to listen to conservative talk radio. They didn't listen to liberal talk radio. Boo hoo.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on March 12, 2008, 02:56:00 PM
My head just exploded.
Post by: HankB on March 12, 2008, 04:15:41 PM
Radio shows exist when people listen to them and respond to advertisers.
People like to listen to conservative talk radio. They didn't listen to liberal talk radio. Boo hoo.
Leftists WOULD listen to liberal talk radio, but with overwhelmingly liberal broadcast TV, cable TV, and newspapers, there's such a thing as market saturation . . . I mean, it's hard to read the New York Times, watch CBS, and listen to Air America all at the same time.
People like to listen to conservative talk radio. They didn't listen to liberal talk radio. Boo hoo.
Post by: Bigjake on March 12, 2008, 04:57:08 PM
Post by: nico on March 12, 2008, 07:04:52 PM
Why couldn't we have 8 good years of THAT guy??
Agreed. It's hard to imagine George W. Bush giving that speech
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 09:44:38 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 05:34:18 AM
So.... wait.. we're now seriously considering regulating radio for political content? Is that even constitutional?
Um, yes.Radio is licensed. Ergo it is a privilege. Ergo gov't can regulate it. That was the rule up to 20 years ago. And it made some sense given the limited media outlet 20+ years ago.
Today, with internet, cable, etc there are plenty of outlets for all kinds of views.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 13, 2008, 05:37:13 AM
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 05:43:46 AM
I believe the liberal cry for this started after conservative talk radio completely derailed the amnesty-for-illegals bill, informing people and causing them to flood legislative phone lines to tell their lawmakers to knock it off.
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
I'm not aware of any such bill.
In any case, the success of conservative talk radio has certainly pushed the agenda here to limit it.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 13, 2008, 05:55:06 AM
I believe the liberal cry for this started after conservative talk radio completely derailed the amnesty-for-illegals bill, informing people and causing them to flood legislative phone lines to tell their lawmakers to knock it off.
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
I'm not aware of any such bill.
In any case, the success of conservative talk radio has certainly pushed the agenda here to limit it.
WTF?
The euphemistically named "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007" that went down in FLAMES?
Where have you been for the past year?
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 06:11:21 AM
I believe the liberal cry for this started after conservative talk radio completely derailed the amnesty-for-illegals bill, informing people and causing them to flood legislative phone lines to tell their lawmakers to knock it off.
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
They can't have that sort of public mobilization going on, after all.
I'm not aware of any such bill.
In any case, the success of conservative talk radio has certainly pushed the agenda here to limit it.
WTF?
The euphemistically named "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007" that went down in FLAMES?
Where have you been for the past year?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 13, 2008, 06:17:36 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 13, 2008, 06:20:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 13, 2008, 06:21:54 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 13, 2008, 06:47:00 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 07:31:05 AM
Oh, for god's sake... never mind.
I'll take that as an admission that there was no amnesty provision in the bill (which is in fact the case).
Any bill that did not call for the drawing and quartering of illegals was sure to be condemned as "amnesty" in some circles.
If you want to see what amnesty actually looks like, see what Carter did with the draft dodgers as his first presidential act. That's an amnesty.
Post by: Desertdog on March 13, 2008, 08:13:08 AM
Quote
I'll take that as an admission that there was no amnesty provision in the bill (which is in fact the case).
I don't know if there was an amnesty provision in the bill or not, BUT, it would have legalized and made citizens of between 12 and 20 million presently illegal aliens.If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duk, then it is a duck, no matter what you call it.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 09:08:34 AM
Quote
I'll take that as an admission that there was no amnesty provision in the bill (which is in fact the case).
I don't know if there was an amnesty provision in the bill or not, BUT, it would have legalized and made citizens of between 12 and 20 million presently illegal aliens.If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duk, then it is a duck, no matter what you call it.
What any of this has to do with Fairness Doctrine is beyond me. Can someone redirect this thread?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 13, 2008, 09:13:29 AM
So.... wait.. we're now seriously considering regulating radio for political content? Is that even constitutional?
Um, yes.Radio is licensed. Ergo it is a privilege. Ergo gov't can regulate it.
I sort of thought regulation of radio was only for safety purposes (no radio interfering with airlines or with other channels) and only partly bled into obscenity laws.
And of course, I am aware this sort of thing existed in the past, but I thought it went away in the 80's and was no longer an option discussed in the mainstream.
Post by: Finch on March 13, 2008, 09:14:24 AM
So.... wait.. we're now seriously considering regulating radio for political content? Is that even constitutional?
Since when has something being constitutional or not stopped our government. If they want to do it, they will.
Post by: roo_ster on March 13, 2008, 10:11:12 AM
There is a name for such folks.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 13, 2008, 12:09:35 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 12:23:39 PM
The Rabbi & c-daddy are being dishonest in their posts to provoke an effect, rather than for dishonesty's sake, I think.
There is a name for such folks.
There is a name for such folks.
Do tell.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 14, 2008, 08:05:03 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 08:34:10 AM
here you go maybe you can find the part they refer to
Post by: Desertdog on March 14, 2008, 09:04:08 AM
Quote
Why don't y'all post the bill and the relevant sections instead of insisting that everyone else do all the searching?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110OylruM:e536376:
`SEC. 245B. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT.
`(a) Adjustment of Status-
`(1) PRINCIPAL ALIENS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 244(h) of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who satisfies the following requirements:
`(A) APPLICATION- The alien shall file an application establishing eligibility for adjustment of status and pay the fine required under subsection (m) and any additional amounts owed under that subsection.
`(B) CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL PRESENCE-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien--
`(I) was physically present in the United States on or before the date that is 5 years before April 5, 2006;
`(II) was not legally present in the United States on April 5, 2006, under any classification set forth in section 101(a)(15); and
`(III) did not depart from the United States during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006, except for brief, casual, and innocent departures.
`(ii) LEGALLY PRESENT- For purposes of this subparagraph, an alien who has violated any conditions of his or her visa shall be considered not to be legally present in the United States.
`(C) ADMISSIBLE UNDER IMMIGRATION LAWS- The alien shall establish that the alien is not inadmissible under section 212(a) except for any provision of that section that is waived under subsection (b) of this section.
`(D) EMPLOYMENT IN UNITED STATES-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The alien shall have been employed in the United States, in the aggregate, for--
`(I) at least 3 years during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006; and
`(II) at least 6 years after the date of enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007.
`(ii) EXCEPTIONS-
`(I) The employment requirement in clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an individual who is under 20 years of age on the date of enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007.
`(II) The employment requirement in clause (i)(II) shall be reduced for an individual who cannot demonstrate employment based on a physical or mental disability or as a result of pregnancy.
`(III) The employment requirement in clause (i)(II) shall be reduced for an individual who is under 20 years of age on the date of enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007 by a period of time equal to the time period beginning on such date of enactment and ending on the date on which the individual reaches 20 years of age.
`(IV) The employment requirements in clause (i) shall be reduced by 1 year for each year of full time post-secondary study in the United States during the relevant period.
`(V) The employment requirement under clause (i)(I) shall not apply to any individual who is 65 years of age or older on the date of the enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007.
`(iii) PORTABILITY- An alien shall not be required to complete the employment requirements in clause (i) with the same employer.
`(iv) EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYMENT-
`(I) CONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS- For purposes of satisfying the requirements in clause (i), the alien shall submit at least 2 of the following documents for each period of employment, which shall be considered conclusive evidence of such employment:
`(aa) Records maintained by the Social Security Administration.
`(bb) Records maintained by an employer, such as pay stubs, time sheets, or employment work verification.
`(cc) Records maintained by the Internal Revenue Service.
`(dd) Records maintained by a union or day labor center.
`(ee) Records maintained by any other government agency, such as worker compensation records, disability records, or business licensing records.
`(II) OTHER DOCUMENTS- An alien who is unable to submit a document described in subclause (I) may satisfy the requirement in clause (i) by submitting to the Secretary at least 2 other types of reliable documents that provide evidence of employment for each required period of employment, including--
`(aa) bank records;
`(bb) business records;
`(cc) sworn affidavits from non-relatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work, including the name, address, and phone number of the affiant, the nature and duration of the relationship between the affiant and the alien, and other verification information; or
`(dd) remittance records.
`(v) BURDEN OF PROOF- An alien applying for adjustment of status under this subsection has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien has satisfied the employment requirements in clause (i). Once the burden is met, the burden shall shift to the Secretary of Homeland Security to disprove the alien's evidence with a showing which negates the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the evidence.
`(E) PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES-
`(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that--
`(I) no such tax liability exists;
`(II) all outstanding liabilities have been paid; or
`(III) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service.
`(ii) APPLICABLE FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY- For purposes of clause (i), the term `applicable Federal tax liability' means liability for Federal taxes, including penalties and interest, owed for any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i) for which the statutory period for assessment of any deficiency for such taxes has not expired.
`(iii) IRS COOPERATION- The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish rules and procedures under which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall provide documentation to an alien upon request to establish the payment of all taxes required by this subparagraph.
`(iv) IN GENERAL- The alien may satisfy such requirement by establishing that--
`(I) no such tax liability exists;
`(II) all outstanding liabilities have been met; or
`(III) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service and with the department of revenue of each State to which taxes are owed.
`(v) LIMITATION- Provided further that an alien required to pay taxes under this subparagraph, or who otherwise satisfies the requirements of clause (i), shall not be allowed to collect any tax refund for any taxable year before 2006, or to file any claim for the Earned Income Tax Credit, or any other tax credit otherwise allowable under the tax code, prior to such taxable year.
`(F) BASIC CITIZENSHIP SKILLS-
`(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clause (ii), the alien shall demonstrate that the alien meets the requirements of section 312(a) (relating to English proficiency and understanding of United States history and Government).
`(ii) EXCEPTIONS-
`(I) MANDATORY- The requirements of clause (i) shall not apply to any person who is unable to comply with those requirements because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment.
`(II) DISCRETIONARY- The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive all or part of the requirements of clause (i) in the case of an alien who is 65 years of age or older as of the date of the filing of the application for adjustment of status.
`(G) SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT CLEARANCES- The alien shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this subsection. The relevant Federal agencies shall work to ensure that such clearances are completed within 90 days of the submission of fingerprints. An appeal of a security clearance determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be processed through the Department of Homeland Security.
`(H) MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE- The alien shall establish that if the alien is within the age period required under the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.) that such alien has registered under that Act.
`(I) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS- The Secretary may not adjust the status of an alien under this section to that of lawful permanent resident until the Secretary determines that the priority dates have become current for the class of aliens whose family-based or employment-based petitions for permanent residence were pending on the date of the enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007.
`(2) SPOUSES AND CHILDREN-
`(A) IN GENERAL-
`(i) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, if otherwise eligible under subparagraph (B), adjust the status to that of a lawful permanent resident for--
`(I) the spouse, or child who was under 21 years of age on the date of enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007, of an alien who adjusts status or is eligible to adjust status to that of a permanent resident under paragraph (1); or
`(II) an alien who, within 5 years preceding the date of enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007, was the spouse or child of an alien who adjusts status to that of a permanent resident under paragraph (1), if--
`(aa) the termination of the qualifying relationship was connected to domestic violence; or
`(bb) the spouse or child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by the spouse or parent who adjusts status or is eligible to adjust status to that of a permanent resident under paragraph (1).
`(ii) APPLICATION OF OTHER LAW- In acting on applications filed under this paragraph with respect to aliens who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall apply the provisions of section 204(a)(1)(J) and the protections, prohibitions, and penalties under section 384 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1367).
`(B) GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY NOT APPLICABLE- In establishing admissibility to the United States, the spouse or child described in subparagraph (A) shall establish that they are not inadmissible under section 212(a), except for any provision of that section that is waived under subsection (b) of this section.
`(C) SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT CLEARANCE- The spouse or child, if that child is 14 years of age or older, described in subparagraph (A) shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this subsection. The relevant Federal agencies shall work to ensure that such clearances are completed within 90 days of the submission of fingerprints. An appeal of a denial by the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be processed through the Department of Homeland Security.
`(3) NONAPPLICABILITY OF NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 09:31:27 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 14, 2008, 09:47:17 AM
I dont see the word amnesty anywhere here.
Oh please.......
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 09:51:19 AM
"Amnesty was used in South Africa, during the 1990s, as part of the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation)
In the United States immigration debate, allowing illegal immigrants to legally remain in the United States is often called amnesty. [1] Some observers contend that the word amnesty is improperly applied here. One reason for this contention is that the proposals under consideration include financial penalties for illegal immigrants. Another reason is that the government's current practice is generally to deport but not to prosecute illegal immigrants. Hence, there is no legal adjudication of guilt to be forgiven. [2] "
read it slow move lips if it helps
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 10:06:51 AM
I dont see the word amnesty anywhere here.
Oh please.......
And that one aint quacking, bubba.
I challenged anyone to find the word amnesty in the bill. No one has. Because it's not there. There was no "amnesty" provision. The bill did not mandate the death penalty and in some circles that was considered tantamount to amnesty. But people's idiotic misperceptions aren't my problem.
Giving someone a legal way to become a citizen with attached penalties for past violations is not amnesty in any way shape or form.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 14, 2008, 10:19:32 AM
am?nes?ty (mn-st)
n. pl. am?nes?ties
A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.
tr.v. am?nes?tied, am?nes?ty?ing, am?nes?ties
To grant a general pardon to.
[Latin amnstia, from Greek amnsti; see amnesia.]
The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ?2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. amnesty - a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment
exemption, freedom - immunity from an obligation or duty
2. amnesty - a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense
3. amnesty - the formal act of liberating
Verb 1. amnesty - grant a pardon to (a group of people)
Copyyright ? 2008 Farlex, Inc.Source URL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/amnesty
________________________________________________________________________
If you want to play word games then fine, but its still just playing games.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 10:28:02 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 10:30:18 AM
You would find that "amnesty" tends to mean a complete forgiveness for past wrongful behavior. When Carter pardoned the draft dodgers after Vietnam, they got amnesty. They could just walk back over the Canadian border to the U.S. and resume life like nothing happened. That's an amnesty.
This was not an amnesty. This bill would have imposed conditions and fines. Any action that imposes penalties for past behavior is ipso facto not an amnesty.
Post by: Desertdog on March 14, 2008, 11:11:50 AM
Quote
Any action that imposes penalties for past behavior is ipso facto not an amnesty.
Anything short of sending them back to their home country, Canada, England, Ireland, Iraq, Spain, Mexico, or any other country on this earth, or outer space, TO ME, and to many others, is Amnesty. Reminds me of "It depends on what is, is."This started out as "Bush: Fairness Doctrine unfair," which is about controlling what is on the broadcast bands. How did it get here?
Post by: HankB on March 14, 2008, 11:25:13 AM
Post by: cordex on March 14, 2008, 12:38:26 PM
Prisoner: "Whew, at least he didn't say I'd be executed!"
You would find that "amnesty" tends to mean a complete forgiveness for past wrongful behavior.
I don't see the words "complete forgiveness" anywhere in the posted definition.I'm torn when it comes to the immigration debate, and sadly it has little to do with the debate itself and more to do with the advocates of each position. On the one side we've got folks like seeker_two arguing that confining illegal immigrants to cells without food, water and sanitary facilities for four days is no big deal because they're just non-citizen scum. Too bad, so sad! And on the other hand we've got the likes of Rabbi with his nonsensical arguments, specious reasoning and constant flip-flopping between unreasoning belief in law for its own sake in some cases, and dismissal of law as utterly unimportant and irrelevant in others. It's getting hard to separate the root issue from the whining on both sides.
Oh, and I strongly disagree with the "Fairness Doctrine".
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 01:04:48 PM
Quote
Any action that imposes penalties for past behavior is ipso facto not an amnesty.
Anything short of sending them back to their home country, Canada, England, Ireland, Iraq, Spain, Mexico, or any other country on this earth, or outer space, TO ME, and to many others, is Amnesty. Reminds me of "It depends on what is, is."This started out as "Bush: Fairness Doctrine unfair," which is about controlling what is on the broadcast bands. How did it get here?
Hit the nail on the head. TO YOU, it is amnesty. That doesnt make it so, of course. To others anything short of hanging is amnesty.
But it isnt about you. It is about whether the bill was an amnesty or not (and it isnt about the thread title but someone just had to bring it up). I think I've shown it was not an amnesty. If someone would care to bring a text of the bill and find the part that constructively equate to amnesty, I would be happy to admit that's what it was. Until then, you've lost this round.
Post by: johnster999 on March 14, 2008, 01:09:02 PM
As far as amnesty, shamnesty or whatever, it doesn't matter what you call it. The public clearly rejected whatever it was and the arguments associated with it.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 01:11:04 PM
We already have fairness on the airwaves. The people that more people want to listen to stay in business. Others don't. Fair as can be.
As far as amnesty, shamnesty or whatever, it doesn't matter what you call it. The public clearly rejected whatever it was and the arguments associated with it.
Agreed 100% with your first point.As far as amnesty, shamnesty or whatever, it doesn't matter what you call it. The public clearly rejected whatever it was and the arguments associated with it.
On the second, I dont recall ever being asked. I do recall that there was big politicking against it on the part of the Native Right. So the GOP basically killed it.
But things are so much better now, right?
Post by: johnster999 on March 14, 2008, 01:30:38 PM
On the second, I dont recall ever being asked. I do recall that there was big politicking against it on the part of the Native Right. So the GOP basically killed it.
But things are so much better now, right?
But things are so much better now, right?
The folks who helped defeat the legislation weren't really asked either. They just let their point of view be heard strongly. No doubt many were Republicans rallied by talk radio.
Opposition to the notion of legalizing illegals, however, is broad based in the US, not limited to the right, "Native Right" or the GOP.
Things will get better when existing law is enforced.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 01:57:27 PM
Ever wonder why it isnt enforced (as much as people would like)?
hint:it has nothing to do with conspiracy.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 14, 2008, 02:42:19 PM
Judge: "Because of the heinous nature of your crimes, I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead!"
Prisoner: "Whew, at least he didn't say I'd be executed!"
Prisoner: "Whew, at least he didn't say I'd be executed!"
You would find that "amnesty" tends to mean a complete forgiveness for past wrongful behavior.
I don't see the words "complete forgiveness" anywhere in the posted definition.Thank you for a good post Cordex. It was really nice when rabbi was gone and every thread wasn't reduced to arguing pointless minutia.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 06:15:11 PM
fixed it for you
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 14, 2008, 07:57:51 PM
Thank you for a good post Cordex. It was really nice when rabbi was gone and every thread wasn't reduced to arguing pointless minutia. and i wasn't faced with facts and arguments i had no answer for
fixed it for you
Why do you need to troll for rabbi? You sure have gotten cocky since he got back. WTH is your problem?
fixed it for you
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 14, 2008, 08:28:08 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 15, 2008, 04:49:43 PM
Judge: "Because of the heinous nature of your crimes, I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead!"
Prisoner: "Whew, at least he didn't say I'd be executed!"
Prisoner: "Whew, at least he didn't say I'd be executed!"
You would find that "amnesty" tends to mean a complete forgiveness for past wrongful behavior.
I don't see the words "complete forgiveness" anywhere in the posted definition.Thank you for a good post Cordex. It was really nice when rabbi was gone and every thread wasn't reduced to arguing actual facts.
The claim was that the bill was an amnesty. I think Ive shown there was no amnesty. Your response is to say that the actual facts amount to "pointless minutiae." If the facts dont matter, then what does in a discussion? Your opinion? If you arent basing your opinion on the actual facts, what are you basing it on, other opinions?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 15, 2008, 07:26:40 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 15, 2008, 07:47:18 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 15, 2008, 08:02:47 PM
It seems that these little pissing matches always come down to the same few individuals.
Folks, I'm sick of it.
If you don't understand what I mean by that statement, then you really shouldn't be playing here at all.