McCain is blowing his election chances.

nimh wrote:

FACT CHECK

NB. Please note that the Center for Media and Public Affairs, cited below, describes itself as non-partisan but has been criticized as being conservative politically. [..]

Quote:

MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO)

Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain

Barack Obama is getting more negative coverage than John McCain on TV network evening news shows, reversing Obama's lead in good press during the primaries, according to a new study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds that a majority of both candidates' coverage is unfavorable for the first time this year. According to CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter, "Obama replaced McCain as the media's favorite candidate after New Hampshire. But now the networks are voting no on both candidates."

I don't recall that I said that Obama is getting BETTER treatment than McCain. [..] I wasn't comparing one with the other. [..] I've not made the case that he is being dissed by the media or treated unfavorably in comparison to Barry.

The media are treating Obama like a rockstar. This is undeniable. They generally avoid tough questions

Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). [..]

This is a major turnaround [..]. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama's coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks [..].

Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel's Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive) [..]. During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable) [..].

Having cheap slave labor is not a 'need' in this country. It is a want. We want luxury and convenience and the illusion that something can be had for nearly nothing.

And unscrupulous businesses want the luxury of illegal workers that they don't have to pay taxes on when they hire them for cash daily. Illegal workers are so much easier to control. They don't talk back or ask for the day off.

It is the same argument used to justify overseas sweatshops 'Americans need these goods'. No they don't . They want them.

Roberta McCain Chimes In On Britney-Paris Ad

Sen. John McCain may be "proud" of the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad released this week, but his feisty 96-year-old mother apparently disagrees.

Roberta McCain was a featured guest at a McCain campaign event on Thursday afternoon at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The Huffington Post obtained some audio of an exchange after the event where Mrs. McCain is asked about the Paris Hilton ad.

"Oh, well, I didn't see it -- I think it's kinda stupid," she says. "I'm just too old-hat for it. In fact, the other two, I didn't even know who they were. I knew who Paris Hilton was, but then there were other two young girls..." (Someone informed Mrs. McCain that there were only two women in the ad, and that the other was Britney Spears.)

Within a few moments, Roberta was back on message. An acquaintance noted the statement from Rick Davis that was "going to be in the headlines tomorrow," criticizing Obama "for injecting racism into the campaign."

"Oh, he definitely did," Roberta responded.

Audio here.

real life wrote:

Having cheap slave labor is not a 'need' in this country. It is a want. We want luxury and convenience and the illusion that something can be had for nearly nothing.

And unscrupulous businesses want the luxury of illegal workers that they don't have to pay taxes on when they hire them for cash daily. Illegal workers are so much easier to control. They don't talk back or ask for the day off.

It is the same argument used to justify overseas sweatshops 'Americans need these goods'. No they don't . They want them.

Amen to all of that!

All this, however, to me is also a reason why the fight against illegal immigration should start and focus on those "unscrupulous businesses", on the employers who hire these people -- and that includes the people who hire an illegal cleaner or gardener.

Maybe it should even be on the consumers too, with shaming campaigns aimed at shoppers that target those retail companies that have been shown to hire illegals. Hit them in the wallet and they'll soon tighten up.

I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive. And as long as unscrupulous and lazy businesses keep hiring them, they will keep coming, no matter how high a fence you put up and how many people end up dying on their way to get there. It's just a function of the wealth gap between the US and Latin America.

The only effective answer and the only humane answer must focus on the businesses that hire illegals, to start with the bigger corporations. If current laws make it hard for business owners to verify people's legal status (eg, it's not allowed to ask them for their passport or the like), those should be changed, but actually tackling those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants with some urgency would already help a lot, more than any fence would.

And it's on this count, unsurprisingly, that the Bush administration has failed wholesale. Viscerally averse to discomfiting big business in any way, the Bush administration has put all programs that check, chase and fine businesses, whether it is about environmental standards, illegal immigrants or labour regulation, on the back burner or actively discouraged them. In comparison with this, the fence is a populist side show to rally conservative voters without tackling the problem of illegal immigration at its root.

I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive.

real life wrote:

Having cheap slave labor is not a 'need' in this country. It is a want. We want luxury and convenience and the illusion that something can be had for nearly nothing.

And unscrupulous businesses want the luxury of illegal workers that they don't have to pay taxes on when they hire them for cash daily. Illegal workers are so much easier to control. They don't talk back or ask for the day off.

It is the same argument used to justify overseas sweatshops 'Americans need these goods'. No they don't . They want them.

Amen to all of that!

All this, however, to me is also a reason why the fight against illegal immigration should start and focus on those "unscrupulous businesses", on the employers who hire these people -- and that includes the people who hire an illegal cleaner or gardener.


Maybe it should even be on the consumers too, with shaming campaigns aimed at shoppers that target those retail companies that have been shown to hire illegals. Hit them in the wallet and they'll soon tighten up.

I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive. And as long as unscrupulous and lazy businesses keep hiring them, they will keep coming, no matter how high a fence you put up and how many people end up dying on their way to get there. It's just a function of the wealth gap between the US and Latin America.

The only effective answer and the only humane answer must focus on the businesses that hire illegals, to start with the bigger corporations. If current laws make it hard for business owners to verify people's legal status (eg, it's not allowed to ask them for their passport or the like), those should be changed, but actually tackling those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants with some urgency would already help a lot, more than any fence would.

And it's on this count, unsurprisingly, that the Bush administration has failed wholesale. Viscerally averse to discomfiting big business in any way, the Bush administration has put all programs that check, chase and fine businesses, whether it is about environmental standards, illegal immigrants or labour regulation, on the back burner or actively discouraged them. In comparison with this, the fence is a populist side show to rally conservative voters without tackling the problem of illegal immigration at its root.

The solution is the removal of obstacles in a bi-lateral way. We should be negotiating a North American Union with common laws and practices that are beneficial to the haves and have-nots of both Nations.

Quote:

The solution is the removal of obstacles in a bi-lateral way. We should be negotiating a North American Union with common laws and practices that are beneficial to the haves and have-nots of both Nations.

well, we really should include Canada.

nimh wrote:

I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive.

I've said it before: These are the people we should want in our country. They had the brains, initiative, drive and tenacity to get here.

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

The solution is the removal of obstacles in a bi-lateral way. We should be negotiating a North American Union with common laws and practices that are beneficial to the haves and have-nots of both Nations.

well, we really should include Canada.

Why? Do we want to ruin Canada, too?

BBB

beneficial to the haves and have-nots of both Nations.

nimh wrote:

real life wrote:

Having cheap slave labor is not a 'need' in this country. It is a want. We want luxury and convenience and the illusion that something can be had for nearly nothing.

And unscrupulous businesses want the luxury of illegal workers that they don't have to pay taxes on when they hire them for cash daily. Illegal workers are so much easier to control. They don't talk back or ask for the day off.

It is the same argument used to justify overseas sweatshops 'Americans need these goods'. No they don't . They want them.

Amen to all of that!

All this, however, to me is also a reason why the fight against illegal immigration should start and focus on those "unscrupulous businesses", on the employers who hire these people -- and that includes the people who hire an illegal cleaner or gardener.


Maybe it should even be on the consumers too, with shaming campaigns aimed at shoppers that target those retail companies that have been shown to hire illegals. Hit them in the wallet and they'll soon tighten up.

I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive. And as long as unscrupulous and lazy businesses keep hiring them, they will keep coming, no matter how high a fence you put up and how many people end up dying on their way to get there. It's just a function of the wealth gap between the US and Latin America.

The only effective answer and the only humane answer must focus on the businesses that hire illegals, to start with the bigger corporations. If current laws make it hard for business owners to verify people's legal status (eg, it's not allowed to ask them for their passport or the like), those should be changed, but actually tackling those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants with some urgency would already help a lot, more than any fence would.

And it's on this count, unsurprisingly, that the Bush administration has failed wholesale. Viscerally averse to discomfiting big business in any way, the Bush administration has put all programs that check, chase and fine businesses, whether it is about environmental standards, illegal immigrants or labour regulation, on the back burner or actively discouraged them. In comparison with this, the fence is a populist side show to rally conservative voters without tackling the problem of illegal immigration at its root.

This is a GIANT contradiction. Tackling business is as sure a way to hurt the illegal immigrant as any. It further increases their desperation, which apart from being appalling on a humane level, would inevitably lead to an increase in crime and other detriments to the society at large.

The solution is the removal of obstacles in a bi-lateral way. We should be negotiating a North American Union with common laws and practices that are beneficial to the haves and have-nots of both Nations.

Any plan designed to stop poor desperate people from attempting to improve their lot in life by seeking work is as asinine as it is doomed to failure (not to mention anathema to humanity's evolution.)

I've learned that most people on both sides of this argument base much of their objection on the false impression that there is a finite quantity of wealth to be had. Both seek either to increase or maintain their share, in ignorance, because it's been known for centuries that total wealth is practically as limitless as love.

Bill,

Since we should not 'hurt the illegal immigrant' , are you in favor of providing them with free health care under the proposal that 'Present' Obama has put forth?

Since you are already paying their taxes anyway, you surely won't object to increasing the load, will you?

Yes Dys... eventually everyone... even Africans.

real life wrote:

Bill,

Since we should not 'hurt the illegal immigrant' , are you in favor of providing them with free health care under the proposal that 'Present' Obama has put forth?

Well yes... but I would prefer single payer... which can more easily manage the load in a more progressive fashion, and shifts the incentive from maintenance to solutions.

real life wrote:

Since you are already paying their taxes anyway, you surely won't object to increasing the load, will you?

This line highlights your ignorance. What makes you think I am paying their taxes? Clearly; you are no businessman.

DrewDad wrote:

nimh wrote:

I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive.

I've said it before: These are the people we should want in our country. They had the brains, initiative, drive and tenacity to get here.

Smart tenacious criminals are not ideal citizens.

What about those who play by the rules and go thru the proper procedure?

Have they not 'brains' or 'initiative'?

Of course they do.

Anyone willing to break the law to get here should be sent back. Period.