1
   

What is so bad about Gov. Spitzer's plan? Hillary is Right!

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 01:36 am
Lola wrote:


I suggest you go visit some parts of Mexico. Or just watch news programs like the recent ones on CNN about Korea, or Afganistan, etc. Do you not understand about ignorance, lack of education, medical care, having no resources to fall back on? "Do the best they can"....... unbelievable! You don't know squat about what you're talking about. Inform yourself, then express opinions.

So what is the bottom line of your argument here?

I take it you are talking about North Korea by the way? So because conditions are so bad in places like Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, and other countries, you would advocate open borders for anyone and everyone from a large list of countries around the world, is that right?

And because I suggest people in other countries that are worse off than here cannot all come here, I don't know squat? What do I not know that you are referring to here? Where did you get the impression that I am totally unaware or don't know squat about living conditions in other countries? How are living conditions in other countries supposed to somehow totally determine our immigration policy?

I am sorry to be such an apparent thorn in your side, but it would help for you to actually make a case for what you apparently advocate. So far, you seem to be arguing that because people are so bad off in other countries, we should therefore ignore all immigration laws that we have on the books and essentially just ignore the borders from now on. And anyone that advocates enforcing current immigration law is ignorant and heartless?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 05:40 am
Lola wrote-

Quote:
We all know that you're an insensitive, eccentric, idiosyncratic, egocentric old fart. But I love you anyway because you make me laugh.


I have been an old fart for longer than I care to remember but I'm not insensitive.

Quote:
Either I'm too sensitive
Or else I'm getting soft.


'Or else' notice.

My ego has been well and truly crushed by the vicissitudes of life. I have seen plenty of evidence to support the contention that your ego has not yet reached such dizzy heights.

And we are all idiosyncratic and eccentric.

You are using the old assertion trick so beloved of Americans to wriggle out of answering the point.

Quote:
What purpose could there be for a method of reducing everything to one simple solution.......obey the law? Lazinessness, insecurity, paranoia, selfishness, limited mental capacity, limited tolerance of ambiguity, denial of ambivilence, insensitivity to the needs others, stubborness........meanness?


That unjustifiably asserts that law-abiding citizens demonstrate those characteristics and, if anything, the opposite is nearer the truth.

The problem is your nation's propensity to advertise your way of life under the noses of those less fortunate (if they are). What % of the population of these other countries seek to get into the US? As that % is small it consists of idiosyncratics and eccentrics by definition.

When the first explorers reached Iceland they found a paradise and they called it by that name to put people off following them.

It is eccentric and idiosyncratic to try to connect the motives of starving people with their desire for education and employment and to suggest that they have no other motives for seeking entry into the US. And starving people are usually not fit to undertake such adventures.

Even "We all know" is a doubtful proposition. And "centric" appearing twice within a short sentence is a bit iffy.

Liberals are in the comforting position of being able to suggest policies which present themselves as caring and compassionate knowing that the policies will never be put into effect. A win/win strategy. And highly egocentric and idiosyncratic and lazy and selfish and irresponsible and of extremely limited mental capacity in that there must be a presumtion that "we" won't notice which implies underestimation of other A2Kers and, logically, over-estimation of the self.

Can you not admit, dear Lola, that your use of "starving" was a cheap shot and an insult to our intelligence?

Go on my sweet-- crush your ego.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 06:12 am
Making entry into any club difficult is a tried and tested method to make sure that those who gain entry are worthy of being allowed in.

One might say that the feminine principle as it guides the evolution process by sexual selection is subject to no other consideration and it is surprising to find a professed evolutionist now seeking to overturn it.

I daresay that the social gathering places which Lola attends have their strict dress codes, price levels and behavioural exingencies which render them suitable places in which a lady of her class and station can most readily disport herself to best advantage. That still allows room for new recruits who are deemed suitable by way of having passed the tests and obeyed the unwritten laws of the particular stratum in which she happens to have found herself either by good fortune or skilful strategies.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 07:48 am
Lola says..."It's not easy to get into this country legally. Or at least it's not easy if you're one of those who desparately needs to get in. "

It is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be controlled by the host nation, not by the "invitees".

I have no interest in the "desperate" and their need to get here. I do not see lines of "desperate" Canadians entering illegally. Why? Canada has a good economy and Canadians are happy to stay their. That is why for hundreds of years, the US and Canada enjoyed the longest unprotected border in the World.

Contrast that to the "sewer pipe" on our Southern Boarder. Since the MExican Govt refuses to prop up their economy and keep their citizens happy in their native land, they are "DESPERATE" to LEAVE.

Come to America the right way and we are happy to have you.

Why is this a problem for every Politician in this country?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 09:37 am
okie wrote:
Lola wrote:


I suggest you go visit some parts of Mexico. Or just watch news programs like the recent ones on CNN about Korea, or Afganistan, etc. Do you not understand about ignorance, lack of education, medical care, having no resources to fall back on? "Do the best they can"....... unbelievable! You don't know squat about what you're talking about. Inform yourself, then express opinions.

So what is the bottom line of your argument here?

I take it you are talking about North Korea by the way? So because conditions are so bad in places like Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, and other countries, you would advocate open borders for anyone and everyone from a large list of countries around the world, is that right?

And because I suggest people in other countries that are worse off than here cannot all come here, I don't know squat? What do I not know that you are referring to here? Where did you get the impression that I am totally unaware or don't know squat about living conditions in other countries? How are living conditions in other countries supposed to somehow totally determine our immigration policy?

I am sorry to be such an apparent thorn in your side, but it would help for you to actually make a case for what you apparently advocate. So far, you seem to be arguing that because people are so bad off in other countries, we should therefore ignore all immigration laws that we have on the books and essentially just ignore the borders from now on. And anyone that advocates enforcing current immigration law is ignorant and heartless?


Read my posts carefully, then get back to me. The answers to all your questions are there. I can see why you might not have understood Hillary's answer in the debate. You weren't paying attention to what she said.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 09:42 am
Lola wrote:
okie wrote:
Lola wrote:


I suggest you go visit some parts of Mexico. Or just watch news programs like the recent ones on CNN about Korea, or Afganistan, etc. Do you not understand about ignorance, lack of education, medical care, having no resources to fall back on? "Do the best they can"....... unbelievable! You don't know squat about what you're talking about. Inform yourself, then express opinions.

So what is the bottom line of your argument here?

I take it you are talking about North Korea by the way? So because conditions are so bad in places like Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, and other countries, you would advocate open borders for anyone and everyone from a large list of countries around the world, is that right?

And because I suggest people in other countries that are worse off than here cannot all come here, I don't know squat? What do I not know that you are referring to here? Where did you get the impression that I am totally unaware or don't know squat about living conditions in other countries? How are living conditions in other countries supposed to somehow totally determine our immigration policy?

I am sorry to be such an apparent thorn in your side, but it would help for you to actually make a case for what you apparently advocate. So far, you seem to be arguing that because people are so bad off in other countries, we should therefore ignore all immigration laws that we have on the books and essentially just ignore the borders from now on. And anyone that advocates enforcing current immigration law is ignorant and heartless?


Read my posts carefully, then get back to me. The answers to all your questions are there. I can see why you might not have understood Hillary's answer in the debate. You weren't paying attention to what she said.


Please explain 2 things.

1) Why is it the responsibility of the US to finance poverty stricken of South American Nations who refuse to improve the way of life of their own Citizens?

2) What exactly was that Hillary said again? In for it, I'm against it? I understand it?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 09:52 am
Lola wrote:

Read my posts carefully, then get back to me. The answers to all your questions are there. I can see why you might not have understood Hillary's answer in the debate. You weren't paying attention to what she said.

Your opinion should not be hard to sum up in a sentence or two, or at least in a short paragraph, if you are proud of it and believe it. I understood Hillary's answer. I just don't agree with it and for reasons already explained, her answers are not consistent and that is abundantly obvious to many people except for her staunchest supporters. Even Obama is starting to catch on and point out some of her inconsistencies.

To sum up what I think you think from reading your posts.

- I am ignorant because I am unaware of how bad off people are in other countries.
- Anyone that is bad off should be able to come here illegally and we should all be happy about it. Anything less is just not compassionate and understanding of reality.

If that isn't correct, please clarify.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 09:57 am
Something else that puzzles me here. I thought liberals believe this country is screwed up with a bad health care system that is unfair, the economy is lousy, and opportunities are mainly available to the rich. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I have also encountered the argument here from at least one lib that unemployment is far far worse than the official figures, that Bush's new job numbers are cooked, so how could there be any jobs? So how come, Lola, do you argue that millions of poor people want to come here to find work and opportunity and better themselves?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 09:23 am
In answer to the question posed in the title of this thread, it was a lousy idea, and most people knew it from the start, except a few people such as Hillary of course.

"Spitzer said overwhelming public opposition led to his decision."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311544,00.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:07 am
Quote:
In answer to the question posed in the title of this thread, it was a lousy idea, and most people knew it from the start, except a few people such as Hillary of course.

And Chertoff and the Bush administration.

Do try to be honest.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:10 am
I said, "such as Hillary." Where did I say she was the only one, if you wish to nitpick. So if you want to invoke the term "honesty," perhaps you could instead try to be honest?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:46 am
By the way, Hillary's staff probably told / ordered Spitzer to withdraw the plan before the debate. Do not embarass Hillary, that is Rule #1, got that, Spitzer?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:48 am
okie wrote:
By the way, Hillary's staff probably told / ordered Spitzer to withdraw the plan before the debate. Do not embarass Hillary, that is Rule #1, got that, Spitzer?


Sort of like the Fox News 'Don't embarrass Rudy' orders?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/nyregion/13cnd-regan.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Kerik is going to dragggggg him right down...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 01:53 pm
Fine, cyclops, I am not that devoted to the Guiliani candidacy, so it wouldn't disappoint me. It might clear up the field a little more to give another candidate a better chance to emerge as the front runner.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 02:58 pm
okie wrote:
Fine, cyclops, I am not that devoted to the Guiliani candidacy, so it wouldn't disappoint me. It might clear up the field a little more to give another candidate a better chance to emerge as the front runner.


I'd like to see both Hillary and Giuliani dragged down and make room for others.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 04:44 pm
CLINTON: 'I WILL NOT SUPPORT DRIVER'S LICENSES'... well this week anyway.


From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
After weeks of giving a less-than-clear answer on the topic of how she felt about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Hillary Clinton came out today in support of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan... to end his quest to do just that.

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "His difficult job is made that much harder by the failure of the Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

"As President, I will not support drivers' licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

For several days after the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, reporters pressed Clinton on this issue and her rivals accused her of refusing to answer what some saw as a "yes or no" question -- Should undocumented workers have licenses?

*** UPDATE *** We point you to our timeline of her statements on the issue, which we put together last week -- from her Oct. 16 meeting with the Nashua Telegraph editorial board to her performance at the debate and more.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/07/453457.aspx

*** UPDATE 2 *** Obama spokesman Bill Burton writes, "When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it's easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/14/466985.aspx Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 08:40:15