If DADT isn't repealed, blame the Republicans

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 1:25 PM GMT
    In yet another example in the endless line of asshat Republican obstructionism, the Senate leadership is collecting signatures from its members on a pledge to block any legislation not related to taxes and the economy.

    Here we see on our issues, what the Republicans have done on virtually every piece of legislation put forward by Democrats in this Congress. Imagine how much further along the country would be, if these asshats would stop playing politics and actually govern.

    Associate Press
    Senate Republicans Plan To Block Virtually All Democratic-Backed Bills

    WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current postelection session of Congress, officials said Tuesday, adding that the leadership has quietly collected signatures on a letter pledging to carry out the strategy.

    If carried out, it would doom Democratic-backed attempts to end the Pentagon's practice of discharging openly gay members of the military service and give legal status to young illegal immigrants who join the military or attend college.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made both measures a priority as Democrats attempt to enact legislation long sought by groups that supported them in the recent midterm elections.

    A nuclear arms treaty with Russia that President Barack Obama wants ratified would not be affected, since any debate would take place under different rules than those that apply to legislation. Even so, its passage is not assured as Republicans are seeking concessions from the White House.

    Officials who disclosed the new Republican maneuver did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss it.

    It was not known how many of the Senate's 42 Republicans had signed the draft letter, which the leadership intends to make public quickly.

    Senate Democrats need 60 votes to overcome any delaying tactics, meaning they could be thwarted if 41 Republicans join in the commitment.

    Democrats' chances of passing politically charged legislation will dim when the new Congress convenes in January, since Republicans will take control of the House and gain more Senate seats.

    The letter comes after comments by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others in his party that the voters made it clear in the elections they want lawmakers to focus on economic issues.

    "Despite what some Democrats in Congress have suggested, voters did not signal they wanted more cooperation on the Democrats' big-government policies that most Americans oppose," McConnell and incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post.


    Now, more than 70% of the American people support repeal of the DADT, and rather than Big Government, it actually removes the government from the private lives of our military. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 1:37 PM GMT
    Thanks.. I was going to post this letter myself..

    childish, immature, and a pathetic excuse for statesmanship.. PERIOD!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 1:51 PM GMT
    Just got to keep kicking that can down the road for a little while longer...two years tops.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidNow, more than 70% of the American people support repeal of the DADT, and rather than Big Government, it actually removes the government from the private lives of our military. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Yeah, at the same time that Republicans bellow that financial controls on their big Wall Street contributors must be removed because they represent the abuses of "Big Government" they think that wasting time & resources maintaining social controls on the US military is an example of "Small Government."

    Republicans apparently didn't hear about the financial sector meltdown during their last majority, which was partly due to lax government oversight, but they solemnly warn there'll be a military meltdown if gays serve in uniform. They're content to let big business do whatever it wants, but not individual citizens, who must be morally guided by Christian values in their private lives. How about some ethical values for business, some compliance with the law, and some protection for the ordinary people and their jobs & savings?

    Those who cry the loudest that we must return to Constitutional fundamentals have the least understanding that one of the strongest principles in that document is the sovereignty of the citizens, and the prohibiting of government interference in their personal lives. We ban together with laws for the common good, not ban what is not shared in common.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
    Why is it that pro-gay has to be pro-illegal immigrant and anti-gay has to supposedly be anti-illegal immigrant? I don't get it....where did people come up with these rules?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 3:27 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhy is it that pro-gay has to be pro-illegal immigrant and anti-gay has to supposedly be anti-illegal immigrant? I don't get it....where did people come up with these rules?


    Mock, confronted with his own style of extrapolation and tacking disparate things together, doesn't get it.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 3:29 PM GMT
    Has there ever been such a time in the past where people have done this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhy is it that pro-gay has to be pro-illegal immigrant and anti-gay has to supposedly be anti-illegal immigrant? I don't get it....where did people come up with these rules?


    Immigration reform (particularly the sane kind that offers a path to citizenship) and gay rights are both part of a larger progressive movement. Immigration reform, in particularly touches on LGBT rights, because of our lack of marriage rights, which complicates or makes prohibitive long-term relationships between American gays and foreign born gays. Similarly, issues of prison reform and rights impact gays because they are more often subjected to rape and abuse in prison (which is not to suggest that straight people are not), or trans people who are put in prison with members of their birth sex rather than their gender identity.

    The root is that we see our issues as intertwined, and conservatives and libertarians usually seem them as granular.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    Those who cry the loudest that we must return to Constitutional fundamentals have the least understanding that one of the strongest principles in that document is the sovereignty of the citizens, and the prohibiting of government interference in their personal lives. We ban together with laws for the common good, not ban what is not shared in common.

    Typical liberal doublespeak and hypocrisy.

    "Sovereignty of the citizens" as in, "purchase what we tell you to purchase or we will fine you" kind of sovereignty?

    Common good kind of sovereignty, as in pay your taxes and obey the traffic laws, just for starters. Or are you proposing anarchy?

    (And actually I thought my last sentence you quoted was rather elegant)

    But where is the common good in telling me I can't be gay without suffering from discrimination & hate crimes, or not have the same civil rights as straights, as you have proposed here? My personal life, insofar as it does not endanger anyone else's life, is mine to live, not the government's, as Republicans propose.

    I'm sorry if my gay lifestyle upsets certain Christian sects and right-wing politicians. But that's not a basis to persecute me, nor deny me basic rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Constitution. Not LIKING what I do, for no better reason than you don't personally like it, doesn't mean you get to prohibit it under law.

    Now please tell us again why the Republican Party platform should intrude into my bedroom, and into my personal life? Isn't that an example of the unconstitutional overreaching that right-wingers and Teabaggers rail against?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 3:43 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidWhy is it that pro-gay has to be pro-illegal immigrant and anti-gay has to supposedly be anti-illegal immigrant? I don't get it....where did people come up with these rules?


    Immigration reform (particularly the sane kind that offers a path to citizenship) and gay rights are both part of a larger progressive movement. Immigration reform, in particularly touches on LGBT rights, because of our lack of marriage rights, which complicates or makes prohibitive long-term relationships between American gays and foreign born gays. Similarly, issues of prison reform and rights impact gays because they are more often subjected to rape and abuse in prison (which is not to suggest that straight people are not), or trans people who are put in prison with members of their birth sex rather than their gender identity.

    The root is that we see our issues as intertwined, and conservatives and libertarians usually seem them as granular.


    The connection is invented, they are not related issues -- except in the minds of "progressives". Politicians ended up taking one side or the other depending on how it affected/affects their political standing.

    What you call immigration reform is simply amnesty -- there is no actual justification for it. It's based on "let's be nice and compassionate and make them legal now". So what's the stop this from just happening in the future? The world will view our immigration laws as a joke that can be broken over and over -- this creates a precedent for disorder. If someone has come illegally they should suffer the consequences of their actions. OR, we could solve the problem and get rid of welfare and then worrying about borders wouldn't really matter. But I have a feeling you want to keep welfare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 4:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidWhy is it that pro-gay has to be pro-illegal immigrant and anti-gay has to supposedly be anti-illegal immigrant? I don't get it....where did people come up with these rules?


    Immigration reform (particularly the sane kind that offers a path to citizenship) and gay rights are both part of a larger progressive movement. Immigration reform, in particularly touches on LGBT rights, because of our lack of marriage rights, which complicates or makes prohibitive long-term relationships between American gays and foreign born gays. Similarly, issues of prison reform and rights impact gays because they are more often subjected to rape and abuse in prison (which is not to suggest that straight people are not), or trans people who are put in prison with members of their birth sex rather than their gender identity.

    The root is that we see our issues as intertwined, and conservatives and libertarians usually seem them as granular.


    The connection is invented, they are not related issues -- except in the minds of "progressives". Politicians ended up taking one side or the other depending on how it affected/affects their political standing.

    What you call immigration reform is simply amnesty -- there is no actual justification for it. It's based on "let's be nice and compassionate and make them legal now". So what's the stop this from just happening in the future? The world will view our immigration laws as a joke that can be broken over and over -- this creates a precedent for disorder. If someone has come illegally they should suffer the consequences of their actions. OR, we could solve the problem and get rid of welfare and then worrying about borders wouldn't really matter. But I have a feeling you want to keep welfare.


    So, the connection between immigration laws that are outdated, unenforced for 12 million undocumented workers, but resolutely enforced when it comes to dual national couples, is "invented?" And being raped in prison because you're a transgender woman or a femme gay guy while corrections turns a blind eye has nothing to do with gay rights?

    I think the reality is that you refuse to see the connection as you refuse to see the interdependency of all Americans with each other, our government and the international community.

    What we have now is amnesty. Laws that are not enforced or enforceable, if for no other reason than cost (it would take tens of billions to detain and deport the 12 million immigrants here illegally), coupled with an economy that has become highly dependent on immigrant labor to function.

    And, undocumented workers don't receive "welfare" because - stay with me now - they ARE not here legally. Their children may receive some healthcare and they do attend our schools, but the adults - fearing deportation - largely avoid any of our governmental systems.

    So, creating a one-time, you're already here let's get you a path to legal citizenship coupled with deporting those who are dangerous or, for some other reason are not capable of being good citizens, is the most cost-effective and economically sound way to approach the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBut I have a feeling you want to keep welfare.

    Whereas you evidently do not. Please expand on your view of a US without any welfare for the disabled and needy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 4:32 PM GMT
    Oh apparently it will be a nation of volunteers with no need to work for a living but with lots of money to give to the poor. icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidWhy is it that pro-gay has to be pro-illegal immigrant and anti-gay has to supposedly be anti-illegal immigrant? I don't get it....where did people come up with these rules?


    Immigration reform (particularly the sane kind that offers a path to citizenship) and gay rights are both part of a larger progressive movement. Immigration reform, in particularly touches on LGBT rights, because of our lack of marriage rights, which complicates or makes prohibitive long-term relationships between American gays and foreign born gays. Similarly, issues of prison reform and rights impact gays because they are more often subjected to rape and abuse in prison (which is not to suggest that straight people are not), or trans people who are put in prison with members of their birth sex rather than their gender identity.

    The root is that we see our issues as intertwined, and conservatives and libertarians usually seem them as granular.


    The connection is invented, they are not related issues -- except in the minds of "progressives". Politicians ended up taking one side or the other depending on how it affected/affects their political standing.

    What you call immigration reform is simply amnesty -- there is no actual justification for it. It's based on "let's be nice and compassionate and make them legal now". So what's the stop this from just happening in the future? The world will view our immigration laws as a joke that can be broken over and over -- this creates a precedent for disorder. If someone has come illegally they should suffer the consequences of their actions. OR, we could solve the problem and get rid of welfare and then worrying about borders wouldn't really matter. But I have a feeling you want to keep welfare.


    So, the connection between immigration laws that are outdated, unenforced for 12 million undocumented workers, but resolutely enforced when it comes to dual national couples, is "invented?" And being raped in prison because you're a transgender woman or a femme gay guy while corrections turns a blind eye has nothing to do with gay rights?

    I think the reality is that you refuse to see the connection as you refuse to see the interdependency of all Americans with each other, our government and the international community.

    What we have now is amnesty. Laws that are not enforced or enforceable, if for no other reason than cost (it would take tens of billions to detain and deport the 12 million immigrants here illegally), coupled with an economy that has become highly dependent on immigrant labor to function.

    And, undocumented workers don't receive "welfare" because - stay with me now - they ARE not here legally. Their children may receive some healthcare and they do attend our schools, but the adults - fearing deportation - largely avoid any of our governmental systems.

    So, creating a one-time, you're already here let's get you a path to legal citizenship coupled with deporting those who are dangerous or, for some other reason are not capable of being good citizens, is the most cost-effective and economically sound way to approach the issue.


    It's amazing how you bring up the lack of proper immigration enforcement which is a direct result of people who have tried hard for the laws NOT to be enforced as they should be -- some of these same people are now claiming, such as yourself, that we must embrace some sort of immigration reform (another way of saying amnesty) BECAUSE there hasn't been enough enforcement in the past. Pretty ingenious if you ask me!

    The recent attempts to block certain individuals in positions of power who have made it a priority to start enforcing the law demonstrates that the progressives simply have an agenda that cares not about maintaining any kind of basic fiscal sanity except for a system that continually seeks to levy from those who have to give to those who have not. I doubt anyone needs to bring attention to the idea that progressives have great intentions and think that their ideas will create a "better tomorrow", but in the process they ignore the fact that their ideas about how society should operate is innately unsustainable --- it's like trying to apply fantasy to the real world and thinking it will actually work out properly.

    I love how you hint that many of our immigration laws are not enforceable, and yet you want me to believe that after some sort of amnesty is granted that miraculously we will start to have an effective system where immigration laws are enforced? Do you honestly expect me to buy that horse crap? There is no plan from the left to enforce immigration laws now or in the future.

    Regarding welfare, I was obviously referring to the government assistance given to illegals for their children, although it really ends up subsidizing them as well in a variety of forms including government housing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 5:56 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    It's amazing how you bring up the lack of proper immigration enforcement which is a direct result of people who have tried hard for the laws NOT to be enforced as they should be -- some of these same people are now claiming, such as yourself, that we must embrace some sort of immigration reform (another way of saying amnesty) BECAUSE there hasn't been enough enforcement in the past. Pretty ingenious if you ask me!

    The recent attempts to block certain individuals in positions of power who have made it a priority to start enforcing the law demonstrates that the progressives simply have an agenda that cares not about maintaining any kind of basic fiscal sanity except for a system that continually seeks to levy from those who have to give to those who have not. I doubt anyone needs to bring attention to the idea that progressives have great intentions and think that their ideas will create a "better tomorrow", but in the process they ignore the fact that their ideas about how society should operate is innately unsustainable --- it's like trying to apply fantasy to the real world and thinking it will actually work out properly.

    I love how you hint that many of our immigration laws are not enforceable, and yet you want me to believe that after some sort of amnesty is granted that miraculously we will start to have an effective system where immigration laws are enforced? Do you honestly expect me to buy that horse crap? There is no plan from the left to enforce immigration laws now or in the future.

    Regarding welfare, I was obviously referring to the government assistance given to illegals for their children, although it really ends up subsidizing them as well in a variety of forms including government housing.



    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Immigration reform isn't amnesty. You get lost when you put your ideology ahead of what is best for this country. Finding, arresting, and deporting 12 million undocumented workers and their children is simply (nearly 4% of the US population) a nonstarter. The costs for doing this will run into the tens, if not, hundreds of billions for enforcement alone. How are we paying for that? Remember that Arizona can't afford to pay for life saving transplants for American citizens, so where will they find the money to find, arrest and deport their illegal immigrants.

    And your rant about "do-gooders" is silly, but very revealing.

    In terms of the laws being effective, that's why I am for comprehensive reform, which might include tightening borders, beefing up INS, and changing the quotas that we accept from certain countries, etc.

    They are ineffective now for a number of reasons but one of them is the scale of the problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 7:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    It's amazing how you bring up the lack of proper immigration enforcement which is a direct result of people who have tried hard for the laws NOT to be enforced as they should be -- some of these same people are now claiming, such as yourself, that we must embrace some sort of immigration reform (another way of saying amnesty) BECAUSE there hasn't been enough enforcement in the past. Pretty ingenious if you ask me!

    The recent attempts to block certain individuals in positions of power who have made it a priority to start enforcing the law demonstrates that the progressives simply have an agenda that cares not about maintaining any kind of basic fiscal sanity except for a system that continually seeks to levy from those who have to give to those who have not. I doubt anyone needs to bring attention to the idea that progressives have great intentions and think that their ideas will create a "better tomorrow", but in the process they ignore the fact that their ideas about how society should operate is innately unsustainable --- it's like trying to apply fantasy to the real world and thinking it will actually work out properly.

    I love how you hint that many of our immigration laws are not enforceable, and yet you want me to believe that after some sort of amnesty is granted that miraculously we will start to have an effective system where immigration laws are enforced? Do you honestly expect me to buy that horse crap? There is no plan from the left to enforce immigration laws now or in the future.

    Regarding welfare, I was obviously referring to the government assistance given to illegals for their children, although it really ends up subsidizing them as well in a variety of forms including government housing.



    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Immigration reform isn't amnesty. You get lost when you put your ideology ahead of what is best for this country. Finding, arresting, and deporting 12 million undocumented workers and their children is simply (nearly 4% of the US population) a nonstarter. The costs for doing this will run into the tens, if not, hundreds of billions for enforcement alone. How are we paying for that? Remember that Arizona can't afford to pay for life saving transplants for American citizens, so where will they find the money to find, arrest and deport their illegal immigrants.

    And your rant about "do-gooders" is silly, but very revealing.

    In terms of the laws being effective, that's why I am for comprehensive reform, which might include tightening borders, beefing up INS, and changing the quotas that we accept from certain countries, etc.

    They are ineffective now for a number of reasons but one of them is the scale of the problem.


    One's state of "legality" should not rest on who is merely born in the USA but by some other criteria, namely if one of the parents has legal citizenship or both. We need to cut off the benefits that children of illegals receive. That way, they are either self-sustainable or they won't come at all.

    Truth be told, you are not at all in favor of current immigration laws being enforced from here on out -- you keep alluding to the shortfalls of using deportation as a means of handling existing illegals but you honestly are against any current and future attempts to prevent MORE illegal immigration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 7:11 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    It's amazing how you bring up the lack of proper immigration enforcement which is a direct result of people who have tried hard for the laws NOT to be enforced as they should be -- some of these same people are now claiming, such as yourself, that we must embrace some sort of immigration reform (another way of saying amnesty) BECAUSE there hasn't been enough enforcement in the past. Pretty ingenious if you ask me!

    The recent attempts to block certain individuals in positions of power who have made it a priority to start enforcing the law demonstrates that the progressives simply have an agenda that cares not about maintaining any kind of basic fiscal sanity except for a system that continually seeks to levy from those who have to give to those who have not. I doubt anyone needs to bring attention to the idea that progressives have great intentions and think that their ideas will create a "better tomorrow", but in the process they ignore the fact that their ideas about how society should operate is innately unsustainable --- it's like trying to apply fantasy to the real world and thinking it will actually work out properly.

    I love how you hint that many of our immigration laws are not enforceable, and yet you want me to believe that after some sort of amnesty is granted that miraculously we will start to have an effective system where immigration laws are enforced? Do you honestly expect me to buy that horse crap? There is no plan from the left to enforce immigration laws now or in the future.

    Regarding welfare, I was obviously referring to the government assistance given to illegals for their children, although it really ends up subsidizing them as well in a variety of forms including government housing.



    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Immigration reform isn't amnesty. You get lost when you put your ideology ahead of what is best for this country. Finding, arresting, and deporting 12 million undocumented workers and their children is simply (nearly 4% of the US population) a nonstarter. The costs for doing this will run into the tens, if not, hundreds of billions for enforcement alone. How are we paying for that? Remember that Arizona can't afford to pay for life saving transplants for American citizens, so where will they find the money to find, arrest and deport their illegal immigrants.

    And your rant about "do-gooders" is silly, but very revealing.

    In terms of the laws being effective, that's why I am for comprehensive reform, which might include tightening borders, beefing up INS, and changing the quotas that we accept from certain countries, etc.

    They are ineffective now for a number of reasons but one of them is the scale of the problem.


    One's state of "legality" should not rest on who is merely born in the USA but by some other criteria, namely if one of the parents has legal citizenship or both. We need to cut off the benefits that children of illegals receive. That way, they are either self-sustainable or they won't come at all.


    Except to do would be unconstitutional. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to live in another country with smaller government that better reflects your ideology? Maybe Somalia?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 7:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    It's amazing how you bring up the lack of proper immigration enforcement which is a direct result of people who have tried hard for the laws NOT to be enforced as they should be -- some of these same people are now claiming, such as yourself, that we must embrace some sort of immigration reform (another way of saying amnesty) BECAUSE there hasn't been enough enforcement in the past. Pretty ingenious if you ask me!

    The recent attempts to block certain individuals in positions of power who have made it a priority to start enforcing the law demonstrates that the progressives simply have an agenda that cares not about maintaining any kind of basic fiscal sanity except for a system that continually seeks to levy from those who have to give to those who have not. I doubt anyone needs to bring attention to the idea that progressives have great intentions and think that their ideas will create a "better tomorrow", but in the process they ignore the fact that their ideas about how society should operate is innately unsustainable --- it's like trying to apply fantasy to the real world and thinking it will actually work out properly.

    I love how you hint that many of our immigration laws are not enforceable, and yet you want me to believe that after some sort of amnesty is granted that miraculously we will start to have an effective system where immigration laws are enforced? Do you honestly expect me to buy that horse crap? There is no plan from the left to enforce immigration laws now or in the future.

    Regarding welfare, I was obviously referring to the government assistance given to illegals for their children, although it really ends up subsidizing them as well in a variety of forms including government housing.



    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Immigration reform isn't amnesty. You get lost when you put your ideology ahead of what is best for this country. Finding, arresting, and deporting 12 million undocumented workers and their children is simply (nearly 4% of the US population) a nonstarter. The costs for doing this will run into the tens, if not, hundreds of billions for enforcement alone. How are we paying for that? Remember that Arizona can't afford to pay for life saving transplants for American citizens, so where will they find the money to find, arrest and deport their illegal immigrants.

    And your rant about "do-gooders" is silly, but very revealing.

    In terms of the laws being effective, that's why I am for comprehensive reform, which might include tightening borders, beefing up INS, and changing the quotas that we accept from certain countries, etc.

    They are ineffective now for a number of reasons but one of them is the scale of the problem.


    One's state of "legality" should not rest on who is merely born in the USA but by some other criteria, namely if one of the parents has legal citizenship or both. We need to cut off the benefits that children of illegals receive. That way, they are either self-sustainable or they won't come at all.


    Except to do would be unconstitutional. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to live in another country with smaller government that better reflects your ideology? Maybe Somalia?


    Again, it all has to do with priorities. If you're going to have programs that can be taken advantage of which prove to be deleterious to the overall population and the budget then certain measures have to be taken to prevent that. If we get rid of welfare then the whole immigration problem is non-existent. So what will it be?

    Perhaps a criteria for being eligible for receiving welfare would need to be set up rather than "citizenship" in particular. If the government is going to provide services levied from people to cover other people then they should be involved in determining the criteria to ensure that it will be sustainable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 7:16 PM GMT
    icon_eek.gifThey are going to have a hard time blocking DADT with Gates coming flat out and asking for repeal and citing the danger of leaving it up to the courts.

    But the Dems should not have left it to this late date to act. The Dems deserve blame for putting our issues on the back burner for so long.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 7:22 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidicon_eek.gifThey are going to have a hard time blocking DADT with Gates coming flat out and asking for repeal and citing the danger of leaving it up to the courts.

    But the Dems should not have left it to this late date to act. The Dems deserve blame for putting our issues on the back burner for so long.

    Agreed. They feared acting earlier would have hurt them during the 2010 election. Well, Dems got plastered anyway, when disillusioned voters stayed home, among them many gays. I blame Rahm Emanuel (former WH CoS) for much of this miscalculation. Now he wants to be Chicago Mayor. Ain't gonna happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 8:36 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAgain, it all has to do with priorities. If you're going to have programs that can be taken advantage of which prove to be deleterious to the overall population and the budget then certain measures have to be taken to prevent that. If we get rid of welfare then the whole immigration problem is non-existent. So what will it be?

    Perhaps a criteria for being eligible for receiving welfare would need to be set up rather than "citizenship" in particular. If the government is going to provide services levied from people to cover other people then they should be involved in determining the criteria to ensure that it will be sustainable.


    What part of "undocumented worker" do you not understand? Undocumentded means they don't have the documents needed to access welfare or other programs. Their children are eligible because of our 14th Amendment that guarantees citizenship to all born in the US.

    Numerous, nonpartisan studies have been done demonstrating that - right-wing hysteria aside - undocumented workers do not put a drain on either the state or federal budget. In fact, they often pay into benefits (like SS) that they will never benefit from. So, your entire argument is one red herring after another with no substance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 9:08 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Regarding welfare, I was obviously referring to the government assistance given to illegals for their children, although it really ends up subsidizing them as well in a variety of forms including government housing.

    You think what you've seen is bad... remember that issue is not a dem nor repub issue.. you should have seen how many LEGAL(questionable too) immigrants went on the SS dole under Bush one from the baltic region!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 9:09 PM GMT
    Christian73 said

    Numerous, nonpartisan studies have been done demonstrating that - right-wing hysteria aside - undocumented workers do not put a drain on either the state or federal budget. In fact, they often pay into benefits (like SS) that they will never benefit from. So, your entire argument is one red herring after another with no substance.
    Actually its the LEGAL immigrants that havent paid a dime into SS but are receiving lifetime benefits that are draining it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 9:11 PM GMT
    LMFAO. Is not DADT the brain child of free willy Bill Clinton, and the Dem's have done nothing to disband it, so it's all there fault. But......hay blame the Republicans, so many of you with only one eye don't see the truth anyway, because you are blinded with what you want to see, go and work in a cocoon like Pixar, and leave the running of your country to the republicans, as soon the Dem's will be GONE from the Withe House anyways.

    I did hear someone say that if the homosexuals had obeyed the rules in the first place, this would never of become an issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 9:15 PM GMT
    True_blue_aussie saidLMFAO. Is not DADT the brain child of free willy Bill Clinton, and the Dem's have done nothing to disband it, so it's all there fault. But......hay blame the Republicans, so many of you with only one eye don't see the truth anyway, because you are blinded with what you want to see, go and work in a cocoon like Pixar, and leave the running of your country to the republicans, as soon the Dem's will be GONE from the Withe House anyways.

    I did hear someone say that if the homosexuals had obeyed the rules in the first place, this would never of become an issue.

    As always, you completely get it wrong, historically, factually, and politically. Can you please STFU about things you know nothing about?

    Say, how's the weather in Australia? Maybe you can manage to get that right. icon_razz.gif