PDA

View Full Version : Latest Lie from Ted Kennedy



eg8r
06-26-2007, 05:57 PM
In reference to the trial vote today on the Amnesty bill... Immigration Bill Clears Senate Test Vote (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070626/D8Q0OAJ01.html) [ QUOTE ]
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, said he was proud of the vote, calling it "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity." <hr /></blockquote> A major step for national security? Come on, how can he get away with such a bold faced lie? How on earth does granting amnesty to a group criminals become a major step for national security?

Absolutely insane. Now for the heros of Congress (as far as this bill is concerned)... [ QUOTE ]
Opposing the move were 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont. <hr /></blockquote> 25 Reps and 9 Dems and an independent have it correct and they are the only ones that truly are looking to increase national security.

[ QUOTE ]
"We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way," Kennedy said in a statement following the vote. <hr /></blockquote> This lying murderer is a great example why the Dem-led Congress has reached historic lows. If Ted was actually listening to the American people he would not be pushing this bill.

If this bill actually goes to a vote, then our next President should be decided largely on how they voted for this bill (provided they were in Congress and voted).

eg8r

Drop1
06-26-2007, 07:37 PM
eg,Kennedy is just posturing. He had to say some thing,but he knows that this Amnesty bill,is dead before it comes up for the next vote. It is one of the problems facing America,but not near the problem Iraq is. Lugar came out with other powerful Republicans,to tell GWB,his war has to come to an end. Bush is behind amnesty,he is behind the Iraq failure,and Bush is behind our failed relations with China,and Europe. I cannot point to a single thing he has done,that has been a benefit to the Country,and now many members of his party are swinging votes to the Democrats. That Amnesty bill could not have passed without Republican help. I don't think you will see many Republican candidates asking Bush to campaign for them.

eg8r
06-26-2007, 08:31 PM
If any of the potential candidates vote for this bill then they have definitely lost my vote.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-26-2007, 10:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> eg,Kennedy is just posturing. He had to say some thing,but he knows that this Amnesty bill,is dead before it comes up for the next vote. <hr /></blockquote>

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, said he was proud of the vote, calling it "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity."

Now I'm confused. You say is just trying to say something good about the situation, yet he was one who actually wrote the bill, and pushed for it's passage. If he knows it's dead in the water (pun intended) wouldn't you think he might ask himself why so few people like the bill? If the vast majority of Americans don't want to see us give 12 million criminals exactly what they want (a path to legal status) why in the world would he write the bill in the first place?

Why is it so hard for our representatives to comprehend that the voters they are supposed to be representing want our boarders secured? And although they are correct in that we can't deport 12million of them overnight, what is wrong with deporting every one who gets arrested for any other reason?

If your basement is flooded, you do two things. First, you stop the flow of water into the basement. Second, you start pumping the water that is already there out. The second takes some time, but eventually your basement is dry, if you made sure to completed step number one, and then step number two.

I'm sick of the jerks in Washington acting like the American people are too ignorant to understand the situation. Although, I guess if they are ignorant enough to keep electing someone like Teddy the Swimmer.....

Steve

Steve

Drop1
06-26-2007, 10:41 PM
I think it is difficult to say something unkind about something you proposed. Mexico recently confiscated a little over two hundred million dollars of drug money.All the politicians look like they have been eating powdered sugar doughnuts,and the war against drugs is lost in Mexico.I don't want this Amnesty bill to succeed,because it does not solve a problem,but as long as it is a road to citizenship,it will be a constant beacon drawing more illegals. Mexico wants a handout,not a hand.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 03:19 AM
If our laws had been enforced all along, we wouldn't be in this position with so many illegal aliens.

Funny, how the right wants to focus on any Democrat involved with this bill, but at the same time, completely ignore the fact that Reagan, brought this mess about, and the huge corporations which dole out the money, and buy our representatives, have been behind the legislative failure to do anything about enforcing our borders, or our laws.

I hope it fails. Thursday is the day to call your representatives and demand that they close our borders, and enforce our laws.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
06-27-2007, 05:43 AM
Gayle,
You are correct in that RR was president when the last amnesty bill passes. That bill was also crafted by Kennedy. And no president since then (Bush SR, Clinton, or GW) did a damn thing to enforce the laws. That was the promise when the last amnesty bill was passed...that the boarders would be closed to illegals. It didn't happen.
So the blame can be shared among both sides for the situation we are in right now.
That doesn't matter. The fact is, we didn't learn from past mistakes, and are ready to do the same thing again. GW, Kennedy, McCain are the ones pushing this insanity.
It makes no difference who is to blame for the situation. What is important is that we send a very loud message to Washington that we do not want this bill to pass. Politicians respond to numbers. If enough phone calls are made, and enough e-mails sent, we do have the power to stop it. The question is, will we??
Steve

DickLeonard
06-27-2007, 07:40 AM
Pooltchr 911 should have changed all of this. Instead of going to War we should have used our Forces to mrnd our Fences. Instead we send our National Guard to Iraq to fight a War that they aren't trained for. ####

pooltchr
06-27-2007, 08:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr 911 should have changed all of this. Instead of going to War we should have used our Forces to mrnd our Fences. Instead we send our National Guard to Iraq to fight a War that they aren't trained for. #### <hr /></blockquote>

Bull$hit. We've had over 20 years to keep the promises that were made and nobody has bothered or even cared. Maybe a little more attention over the past 2 decades might have helped prevent the attacks on 9/11.
We can't change the past, but we damn well should learn from it!
Steve

eg8r
06-27-2007, 09:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Pooltchr 911 should have changed all of this. <hr /></blockquote> Yeah yeah yeah, we know you think W is why the world spins. He is responsible for everything bad on the planet. Does ####, the broken record, know anything else or possibly have something relevant to say.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 12:36 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZ ;-o

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 12:41 PM
Unless Americans launch a massive boycott on paying taxes, I don't think anything will work, about anything, anymore. Call me a doom sayer, but Corporations, run this country, and they don't care about anything but the bottom line. They buy our Representatives, and do as they please, while the rest of us foot the bill, and they hide their money in the Carribbean.

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
06-27-2007, 01:09 PM
Gayle,the bottom line is what every stock holder looks at. How much pension plan money is invested in these multinationals. Right now,everyone on Wall St. is wearing rubber pants,waiting for this weeks Federal reserve action,if any. Wtf happened I ask myself,was America always a carrot on a stick?
Drop

reggie182
06-27-2007, 02:35 PM
Actually no Gayle, you are quite wrong about Ronald Reagan as usual. He is not wholly responsible for the illegal alien problem. People like Ted Kennedy (who you won't criticize by name because he is a Democrat) have been pushing forms of amnesty for over forty years. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is about the American lower and middle class not having sufficient representation in either party.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 06:20 PM
As far as I know, Kennedy, has never had veto power.
[ QUOTE ]
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is about the American lower and middle class not having sufficient representation in either party. <hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps, you need to re-read my posts on this subject?

Also, I never said that Reagan was solely responsible, only that his amnesty program, led to the massive influx, and that every President since, and both parties, have completely failed to enforce the law, or address the problem.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I have stated from the start, that I am against the Democratic position on the illegal alien issue. However, Ronald Reagan, is the President who worked the congress for the amnesty bill some twenty five years ago. The fact that Kennedy agrees with it, does not make him completely responsible for the fact that it was passed. Reagan, however, could have vetoed any bill he wished to veto, and furthermore, it was Reagans policy.

I have no blind love for Kennedy, in the first place. As usual, you're off the beam. I don't bash a person, because they don't mirror my views on every subject. I agree with Kennedy's views, overall, much more than I did Reagan's, although I liked him.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 06:29 PM
I think it is a matter of greed amd corruption. Just my opinion.

I think there was a time when many CEO's, and business owners cared about how their business decisions, impacted this country. And silly ideas like giving back some value, to the society and country, which made their success, possible. Those kind of people are far too few, these days.

I once watched the documentary, The Corporation and was appalled by what I learned. Much of what I have learned since, has not been encouraging.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
06-27-2007, 06:54 PM
Sayeth Gayle: "As usual, you're off the beam. I don't bash a person, because they don't mirror my views on every subject."

So in other words if they agree with you on a majority of issues, if you have occasion to disagree with them on a single issue you refrain from criticizing them by name? This is why you criticize Reagan over immigration but not Kennedy (again, by name) Correct? I just find it odd that I can't recall a single instance where you have called a Democrat out specifically on any issue, which indicates partisanship. Please explain how I'm "off the beam here".

By the way, Reagan signing the bill was a huge mistake, as much as I admire Reagan I'll concede he screwed up on that one. The 1986 bill called for law enforcement as well, unfortunately Reagan's Republican and Democratic successors sat on their hind quarters and let the thing become a catastophe. Bush admittedly being the worst.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 07:24 PM
I think that to say "Both Parties" have failed to enforce the immigration laws, includes both Democrats, AND Republicans. I have written posts here praising some Republicans, and also critisizing some Democrats. Just because you have missed them, doesn't mean you're false accusations are true.

I am very anti-Republican, at this time. I have been Republican, Democratic, and Independent, and have voted for both Republican and Democratic Presidential Candidates. At the present time, I am viewing a Republican Party which I believe has done the most damage I have witnessed in my lifetime. I consider myself to be a patriotic American, which is the reason for my complete rejection of the present Republican ideology, however, I have written posts, and recently, praising the few Republicans, who have won my admiration, naming them, and sending kudos. I have respect for the losses suffered by the Kennedy family, and particularly Ted Kennedy, on behalf of our country. Too bad you find that so annoying. Don't try to make your issues, my issues.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
06-27-2007, 07:34 PM
You don't criticize Ted Kennedy because his brothers were assassinated? Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly died if you remember.

Also, I thought being anti-illegal immigration was one of your issues. You seem to be missing the point. I am not trying to get you to call out your own party members just for s--ts and grins. When something is as important as this immigration bill we have to be prepared to excoriate our own party members. I hear about mad as hell Republicans deluging their representatives with phone calls and e-mails, but I mostly hear crickets chirping on the other side of the political fence.

eg8r
06-27-2007, 07:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have respect for the losses suffered by the Kennedy family, and particularly Ted Kennedy, on behalf of our country. <hr /></blockquote> What bull crap. What about the loss of the Kopechne family? Wasn't their daughter a human being also? I have zero respect for Teddy. He has not done anything good for the US.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-27-2007, 07:53 PM
I have been calling, and e-mailing, and even warning, the Democratic representatives about this issue for six years, FYI.

If you think taking a bullet, and surviving, is as much a sacrifice as a man losing three brothers, and a sister, in their service to our country, then I suggest YOU are showing some serious partisanship yourself, friend.

As for missing the point, or shall we say, your partisan point, I'm not missing anything. I'll post my own way, in my own words, thank you. My big issue is, and has for years, been George Bush's illegal activities, and his complete abuse of Americans, both troops, and citizens, just for starters, and with the approval of the Republican Majority, who gave him complete, unchecked power, to do anything, and everything he wanted to do, and also failed miserably to perform their oversight responsibility, during wartime, and even if it sent this country to war on lies, and caused death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of people, including 3,569, American Troops. THAT, is my issue, FYI.

As for the illegal alien problem, we wouldn't have it, if all the presidents, and the Representatives, would enforce our laws, and Ronald Reagan, started the whole damn thing, with his amnesty bill.

reggie182
06-27-2007, 08:01 PM
I suppose Mary Jo Kapechne doesn't figure into that equation. Right?

Drop1
06-27-2007, 09:40 PM
Right! We all know the story,and Kennedy's cowardly actions,and for you to couple that with the thrust of this post,says a great deal about your character.

reggie182
06-27-2007, 10:04 PM
Which is what Drop1? What exactly does it say about my character to bring up Chappaquidick? Is it something you think should be forgotten or glossed over? Perhaps I can learn a great deal about your character in your response.

reggie182
06-27-2007, 10:18 PM
Bob Dole lost the use of his right arm in World War II. I'm sure the logic that has been suggested within the "thrust of this post" that a profound personal tragedy exempts a public servant from personal criticism would apply to him, and you have all dutifully avoided any criticism of him over the years. Yeah sure /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
06-28-2007, 05:31 AM
I think we are getting a new rule around here. It's not nice to criticize anyone who has suffered a personal tragedy in their life. No more picking on John Edwards. No more picking on the Kennedy family. No more picking on McCain. Due to the personal problems they have had to deal with, we should have sympathy and let them do whatever they want.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Every one of them should be held accountable for their decisions. Kennedy has been pushing amnesty for 30 years. McCain and Bush are on the wrong side of this issue, and I will not support them.
This immigration issue has the potential to destroy this country like nothing we have ever seen before. If we just sit by and do nothing, we will have to explain to our grandchildren (probably in more than one language) why we allowed their birthright to be given away.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-28-2007, 07:34 AM
Amen! There are a large number of Democrats, supporting a position on the illegal alien issue, with whom I do not agree. Of all those being blamed by the right, only their former Republican President, Reagan, who made the amnesty program part of his domestic program, had the power the veto the legislation which has led to another 12 to 30 million more invaders. This is the part they wish to dilute by trying to place all the blame on Kennedy.

IMO, the laws which are already in place regarding our immigration program, should be enforced now, and should have been enforced all along. Both parties failed to do so, but trying to single out the words of only one of those involved, and only from the Democratic party, is a pretty partisan action on its face, and particularly when the amnesty offer is again included in the Presidential Domestic Policy of two Republican Presidents. The Bill was known as the Reagan Amnesty Bill, not the Kennedy Amnesty Bill, and today is known as part of George Bush's Domestic policy, who refuses to call it what it is, another manesty Bill.

In fact, when it comes to referring to lies, in general, the radical right conveniently overlooks the last six years of lies told by their own party.

The important part of all this is that no politician should be allowed to get away with lying to the American Public about National, or International, important issues which have an effect on the lives of Americans. They move this line around to include much more than National, and International interests when it comes to their accessments of Democrats, but fall silent, when their team lies about spying on Americans illegally, torturing human beings, launching war on lies, falsifying intelligence, politicizing the entire Department Of Justice, lying about the purity of our air and water, the list goes on and on.

This is typical of Eggrivator. Notice he doesn't specifically point out the so called lie made by Kennedy. When one's opinion is different from his, he contends one is lying. Kennedy is stating his opinion about the future results of this legislation. That is a different thing entirely from lying, that is his prediction.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2007, 08:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Funny, how the right wants to focus on any Democrat involved with this bill, but at the same time, completely ignore the fact that Reagan, brought this mess about, and the huge corporations which dole out the money, and buy our representatives, have been behind the legislative failure to do anything about enforcing our borders, or our laws.
<hr /></blockquote>

Please point out to me where I state that Reagan is wholly responsible for the illegal alien problem.

Reagan was the President who first offered amnesty to illegals as part of his domestic policy. You are the one in this thread who is trying to turn the problem into a partisan issues, and hence, as usual, you are quite wrong in your accusation. Ted Kennedy, has never had veto power, nor has he held the office of the Presidency, from which to launch a National policy. The Amnesty policy, which led to the huge influx of aliens, was part of the Reagan administration's Domestic policy, FYI. I have already stated that both parties have failed to enforce the safe gaurds which were supposed to prevent further invasions by illegals.

You want to single out one Democratic Senator, and blame him for the Domestic Policies, of two Republican Presidents.

Nice try, but it doesn't fly, just like calling a person's opinion, a lie, doesn't fly.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Drop1
06-28-2007, 01:52 PM
No I don't think it should be forgotten,but I don't think it is part of the emmigration debate. The two are separate considerations. Kennedy had no rational explanation for his failure to rescue a five foot two inch girl,from a car he escaped from, at the time he was young strong,and six feet two inches tall. All explanations from Kennedy,and his Doctor, of shock were pure B.S. in my opinion. That is one issue. Now go to the Amnesty bill, and ask is this good for the Country. The question has nothing to do with Chappaquidick. In my opinion it was not good for the Country,and was strongly supported by Bush,a former drug user,and manipulator of family power,who never should have been President on the first election. That is my opinion,and has nothing to do with his support for the failed Amnesty bill,and I would not attempt to call up his past failures,in connection with the bill. The difference
between your character,and mine,is a simple matter focus. My opinion of Kennedy is he has been too long,out of touch with the People,and should have left long ago. His brother Bobby was a fascist,that had Martin Luther King's phone bugged. J.Edgar Hoover,was a cross dresser. Ok, I'm losing focus,neither point has anything to do with Amnesty. Lastly definition of character: "The aggregate of features and traits,that form the individual nature of some person or thing". In that area,we have nothing in common. Hoped you learned something.

pooltchr
06-28-2007, 02:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Please point out to me where I state that Reagan is wholly responsible for the illegal alien problem.



/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

How about this comment posted in this very thread...

"and Ronald Reagan, started the whole damn thing, with his amnesty bill."

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-28-2007, 02:38 PM
How bout not cherry picking words out of a full sentence in order to twist meaning....

[ QUOTE ]
As for the illegal alien problem, we wouldn't have it, if all the presidents, and the Representatives, would enforce our laws, and Ronald Reagan, started the whole damn thing, with his amnesty bill.
<hr /></blockquote>

Reagan, did start it. I never said he was solely responsible, as you could tell if your intent was other than just taking a shot at me, by twisting my meaning.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
06-28-2007, 03:01 PM
Does the young man Laura Bush killed on the highway figure into your equation regarding the amnesty bill?

Mary Lo Kapechne was a grown woman. She made her own decisions. IMO, she got into a car with a man who had been drinking. Bad choice. The young man slaughtered on the highway by Laura Bush, OTOH, only made a decidion to drive down a road, before she sped through a stop sign and hit him and killed him. Man slaughter, for anyone else.

Neither tragedy has anything at all to do with this thread, incorrectly titled to convey that an opposing, personal opinion of Kennedy's, differing from the Eggragater, is proof of an intentional lie.

The twisting that goes on around here is a joke, IMO. The Pelosi accusations, without mentioning that she is twenty points higher in approval ratings, than Bush, for example. The right, jumping on Democratic earmarks, after six years of Republicans spending like there's no tomorrow.

I feel sorry for you guys. Must be awful to have been so verbal, accusing others of loving the terrorists, and hating America, and now having to watch the Republicans jumping ship, from Bush's Titanic, to embrace the very same position that Democrats have had on the war for two years. I can understand why you're all so pissed, and need a whipping post. Go right ahead, and have at it. Opinions from those who voted for the chimp twice, don't have any credibility with me anyway.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Gayle in Md.

reggie182
06-28-2007, 09:18 PM
Drop1, indeed I did learn something, which is that you don't understand that I brought up Mary Jo Kapechne in response to Gayle's rationale for not criticizing Ted Kennedy directly, which is that because he has had three siblings die, he shouldn't suffer such criticism. It seemed to me that such immunity would be undermined by the man's personal misdeeds. Anyhow, I was not the one who brought up the personal tragedies of anyone involved in the amnesty bill, and don't think that their tragedies or transgressions have anything to do with how we hold them to account for voting on this bill.

That is all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

eg8r
06-29-2007, 05:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Reagan, did start it. <hr /></blockquote> What a BS lie. I even posted in this thread an example of teddy pimping amnesty back in the 60's. Reagan did not start amnesty. It was around long before and him and as we can see now long after him. The only common denominator is teddy. However as we can tell you are not adult enough to admit the truth.

eg8r

eg8r
06-29-2007, 05:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you think taking a bullet, and surviving, is as much a sacrifice as a man losing three brothers, and a sister, <hr /></blockquote> teddy did not sacrifice anything. His lost brothers and sister did, but certainly not ted. I take that back, he did sacrifice Mary Jo.

[ QUOTE ]
My big issue is, and has for years, been George Bush's illegal activities, and his complete abuse of Americans, both troops, and citizens, just for starters, and with the approval of the Republican Majority, who gave him complete, unchecked power, to do anything, and everything he wanted to do, and also failed miserably to perform their oversight responsibility, during wartime, and even if it sent this country to war on lies, and caused death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of people, including 3,569, American Troops. THAT, is my issue, FYI.
<hr /></blockquote> Since you have a handle on your issue, why not see if you can apply the same logic to figuring out the subject of this thread. It certainly has nothing to do with your issue.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the illegal alien problem, we wouldn't have it, if all the presidents, and the Representatives, would enforce our laws, and Ronald Reagan, started the whole damn thing, with his amnesty bill. <hr /></blockquote> You really love this lie. You just keep on perpetuating it until you can talk your friends into believing it. Illegal immigration was a problem long before Reagan and teddy was giving them amnesty before Reagan ever got in the game. teddy then pushed it with Reagan. Guess what, teddy is pushing it again. Notice a trend or should we spell it out for you?

eg8r &lt;~~~wonders if gayle will ever align her "facts" with reality

eg8r
06-29-2007, 05:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Right! We all know the story,and Kennedy's cowardly actions,and for you to couple that with the thrust of this post,says a great deal about your character. <hr /></blockquote> Why attack his character. He is only pointing out the character of the man pushing the amnesty bill.

eg8r

eg8r
06-29-2007, 05:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think we are getting a new rule around here. It's not nice to criticize anyone who has suffered a personal tragedy in their life. No more picking on John Edwards. No more picking on the Kennedy family. No more picking on McCain. Due to the personal problems they have had to deal with, we should have sympathy and let them do whatever they want.
<hr /></blockquote> Does this also apply to Kerry? I mean his wounds were faked just to get out of the war.

I digress...

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-29-2007, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I even posted in this thread an example of teddy pimping amnesty back in the 60's. <hr /></blockquote>

Really? Where is the example of Ted Kennedy pimping amnesty, to use your repulsive terms. I se an accusation of it, by you, but no proof.

Ronald Reagan singned into law the first Amnesty Bill, period, hence, it is called Reagans Amnesty Bill. Reagan was president, not Kennedy.

The only common denominator is two Republican Presidents, pimping amnesty, to use your words.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
06-29-2007, 11:01 AM
Teddy couldn't give amnesty to anyone. Teddy was never President of the United States. Teddy never had VETO power, and it is called Reagan's Amnesty Bill. I could pull up all kinds of statements made by Reagan while he was pushing his Amnesty Bill, and even statements he made regarding amnesty while he was Governor, back before Kennedy was ever in the Senate, that doesn't prove anything. Kennedy had an opinion, Reagan had the power of the Presidency to either allow it, or not, and he pushed it into law, and signed the Bill, not Kennedy.

The problem of today, is a problem left over from Reagan's legacy, period. As usual, you try to lay disasters from Republican policy, at the feet of Democrats. That won't fly. It was Ronald Reagan's Amnesty Bill, not the Kennedy Amnesty Bill, period.


Ahhhhh,zzzzzzzzz,:-o


Gayle in Md.

Drop1
06-29-2007, 12:35 PM
If you're going to Congress to find character,and not the result of legislature,take a lamp with you.

eg8r
06-29-2007, 04:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Really? Where is the example of Ted Kennedy pimping amnesty, to use your repulsive terms. I se an accusation of it, by you, but no proof. <hr /></blockquote> Do you really think I care if you (the trashiest mouth on the board) finds my language repulsive. I find every one of your posts repulsive, who cares? As far as teddy pimping amnesty only a complete idiot would not have noticed. Here is the post from the illegal immigration thread. You are right, it was not found in this thread but since I see so many of your common lies stretch across every single thread I sometimes forget which one I am in. Back to stuffing you full of your murdering buddy teddy and his pimping of amnesty...<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r from other immigration thread:</font><hr>
TED KENNEDY, "Father of the Illegal Alien Invasion of the United States!"

(1) - Ted Kennedy's 1965 comments on the 1965 Immigration Act:
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/060809_promises.htm

"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on . what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.B.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge . the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

(2) - Ted Kennedy's 1986 comments on Reagan's Amnesty bill:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty260.htm

“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this.”
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Ronald Reagan singned into law the first Amnesty Bill, period <hr /></blockquote> Every time you think you can pin everything on a Rep you stop there. I am sad to report, that is probably the level of effort all your "research" goes through.

[ QUOTE ]
The only common denominator is two Republican Presidents, pimping amnesty, to use your words.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, looks like you enjoy repulsing yourself. Once again, more proof your crappy research is not worth the toilet paper it was wiped with.

eg8r

eg8r
06-29-2007, 04:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Teddy couldn't give amnesty to anyone. Teddy was never President of the United States. <hr /></blockquote> You continue the stupid act why should I continue in the discussion and allow you to drag me down to your level.

I am out.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-29-2007, 04:29 PM
Your out, alright, out of your tree...too bad, Polls are showing your widdle party is losing patrons...and they don't like your team, by 69%, they prefer Democrats in majority, guess that means it is the Republican who are really getting the low approval numbers.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So you think that because the entire Senate and Congress, and every president since, did not keep their word about enforcing the limitations in the first REAGAN AMNESTY BILL, Kennedy was lying back in 86, LMAO...typical insane reasoning from the widdle eggravator.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
06-30-2007, 05:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> So you think that because the entire Senate and Congress, and every president since, did not keep their word about enforcing the limitations in the first REAGAN AMNESTY BILL, Kennedy was lying back in 86, LMAO... <hr /></blockquote>

If it wasn't a lie, then the only other possibility is that he was a moron for making a promise that he didn't have the power or ability to keep.
Was he lying, or is he just stupid?
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-30-2007, 06:02 AM
I think he was optimistic, since back in those days, non of us expected that Neocon, Theocratic, Corporate fasicsts would be so successful in ruining our country, attacking our Constitution, corrupting the entire Department of Justice, and ignoring our immigration laws, in favor of Corporate interests, and religious theocrats.

It's really funny how you guys expect Democrats to have crystal balls, but completely ignore Republicans who lie about present conditions. When Lyndon Johnson did that, I was on the street, protesting about it, and voted for Barry Goldwater. What do you think he'd say about an Office Of Faith Based Initiatives, existing in the White House, in our country of Separation Of church And State? Goldwater is turning over in hiw grave. You neocons on here are going to have to realize at some point, that you are a far cry from conservative.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-30-2007, 06:30 AM
No, it doesn't, and please explain why George Bush killing off 600,000 Iraqis, and over 3,576 American troops, without proper rest, training, and equipment, in order to force democracy on another nation, doesn't figure into any of your equasions?

I'm against those who do not enforce our laws. It might interest you to know that the largest influx of illegals, came over our borders, during a Republican Presidency, and a Republican Majority, in both houses. Does that fact figure into your your posts regarding the subject of illegal immigration? Do you figure in the fqact that Reagan started this influx, with his policies, when he signed the amnesty bill?

You neocons on here are so partisan it's a real laugh, when you put partisanship accusations in any of your posts.

IMO, Kennedy is on the wrong side of this issue, as are most of the Democrats. I've said that a dozen times, in other posts. What do you and your other resident Neocon, theocons not understand about that?

Sheeesh!

Gayle in Md.

DeadCrab
06-30-2007, 08:03 AM
****
teddy did not sacrifice anything.
********

Perhaps not, but when drafted, he did serve on active duty in the United States Army for two years. He could have easily gotten out of it, but chose not to do so. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many of his most strident detractors, many of whom grew up to become cowardly chickenhawks.

Gayle in MD
06-30-2007, 08:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
teddy did not sacrifice anything.
<hr /></blockquote>

Which one of these resident chickenhawks said that one, can't remember...

I agree with you completely. I can't think of a single family in American History, who sacrificed the losses of the Kennedy's, yet continued to serve their country.

They surely didn't have the pattern that president chicken/chimp/hawk in the White House had, of having Daddy make some phone calls to get him safely planted away from combat, or to help him avoid jail time.

This attempt to lay Reagans poor judgement with the Reagan Amnesty Bill, other than where the blame belongs, is typical right wing BS.

I have my gripes with Democrats, also. I've never approved of Bill Clinton signing NAFTA, and right now, Democrats are working with Bush to extend it, supposedly in another form, but questionable, at best.

If we all don't stop our Representatives, whichever side, from selling out this country, our kids and grand kids will be living in a third world country.

When the average salary of CEO's increases over 600%, in ten years, you'd think people would wake up to the Corporate fascists who are destroying this country. Importing cheap labor in the service industry, and exporting American jobs, overseas, and Americans are side tracked with Paris Hilton???? OMG, where is the rage?? Only a dummy would detour this thread with partisan BS, and fail to address the underlying issue, illegal aliens.

I wonder how many here actually took the time to call and e-mail their representatives.

If we don't get the hell out of Iraq soon, nothing will matter anyway. Bush is bankrupting the country, to save his fantasy legacy, and our heros are giving their lives and limbs, for NOTHING! It's disgusting. I feel as 67% of Americans feel, Democrats aren't perfect by any means, but their a hellova sight better than Republicans. And the only guys who are brave enough cut through the standard political campaign BS, and stand up and tell the truth, are labeled as kooks.

I say vote for the people with the least money being thrown at them by the Corporate Fascists.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-30-2007, 08:37 AM
"Man slaughter, for anyone else."

What does that mean?

pooltchr
06-30-2007, 09:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Democrats aren't perfect by any means, but their a hellova sight better than Republicans.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

What is the term used when someone makes a judgement on everyone in a particular group based on the actions of some? I'm sure it will come to me.

You conveniently fail to remember how many times the true conservatives on this forum have come out against the liberal tendencies of the "Republican" administration.

To condem all Republicans (Neocons, as you prefer) because of what this liberal Republican group has done is....oh yeah...it came to me....biggoted!!!!

Steve

cushioncrawler
06-30-2007, 05:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> ....What is the term used when someone makes a judgement on everyone in a particular group based on the actions of some? I'm sure it will come to me....<hr /></blockquote>Steve -- Its in the Bible -- its called Original Sin -- actually, i dont think that OS iz in the Bible (but then neither are Catholics). madMac.

Gayle in MD
07-01-2007, 12:08 AM
What is the term used when someone makes a judgement on everyone in a particular group based on the actions of some? I'm sure it will come to me.

I'm sure it will, you do it all the time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

You conveniently fail to remember how many times the true conservatives on this forum have come out against the liberal tendencies of the "Republican" administration.

Your use of the word "Liberal" for all things you deem wrong, is rather inappropriate, given that conservatism, is no where to be found in the Republican Party. You buy their sound bytes, but ignore their performance, which you label as liberal when you find that they were not conservative after all. That is because the Republican Party no long stands for conservative anything. Not in their character, in terms of honesty, and not in their spending, nor in the size they grow the Government. The only thing they are conservative about, is representing the American people.

This administration matches Reagans administration, and Bush Senior's Administration, only it's even worse. I'd say that recent Republican Administrations bring huge debt, loss of good paying jobs, create more problems in the international scene, than they solve, and greatly advance the very corporate fascism that is destroying the country. They favor the rich, and all others lose ground during their tenure. It's comfortable for you to label their actions as liberal, but that term doesn't fit what we've seen in the last three Republican Administrations. You people from the right, are too stuck in the idea that Republican means small government. It doesn't, and it never has. None of your administrations created a smaller government. None of them left office without leaving huge debt, lower wages for the average American people, as compared to the high rolling CEO's, and a poorer health care and educational system. It's time for you to adjust to the fact that what you believe your party represents, does not fit their performance. You can't go on decieving yourself, that all Republican incompetence, corruption and dishonesty, amounts to liberalism. I think that is a huge cop out. Republican conservativism, is an oxymoron.

To condem all Republicans (Neocons, as you prefer) because of what this liberal Republican group has done is....oh yeah...it came to me....biggoted!!!!

LMAO....but it's OK for you to condemn all liberals? Pretty funny remark.

Steve

pooltchr
07-01-2007, 05:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> LMAO....but it's OK for you to condemn all liberals? Pretty funny remark.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Liberals? yes!...but I don't condemn all Democrats...just the liberal ones. I don't support all Republicans...just the conservative ones, which unfortunately, seem to be dwindling in numbers.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Steve

eg8r
07-01-2007, 04:39 PM
Steve, what gayle is doing is playing a game. You see, when a bill is being passed and it is something the right is trying to pass, then the Rep congress is to blame. However, if the bill (albeit only those that she opposes) that is being voted on is PREDOMINENTLY Democratic in favor, then gayle plays the game and says the congressmen do not have the power and it is the Rep presidents bill. Everyone in America knows that this bill is Kennedy and McCain's bill and that the left support it 3 to 1. The left love amnesty that is why teddy lied to America the last time he pimped the bill.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2007, 04:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
****
teddy did not sacrifice anything.
********

Perhaps not, but when drafted, he did serve on active duty in the United States Army for two years. <hr /></blockquote> Are you changing the subject because you lack anything intelligent to say on the current subject? gayle made it sound like teddy had made some type of sacrifice when he never sacrificed anything. It was just another example of her looking like a fool trying to defend her buddies even when she does not even have a basic understanding of the big words she hears other use. She should stick to the grammar she knows and understands. Defending her position on teddy is just plain dumb.

As far as someone going to war or not you people lost your chance to have an opinion when you told us going to war did not matter and Clinton was capable of handling the job of President while being a draft dodger. You are a lame duck if that is what you want to talk about. You probably also want to talk about how cowardly Kerry was when he was faking his injuries just to get out of war.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2007, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you completely. I can't think of a single family in American History, who sacrificed the losses of the Kennedy's, yet continued to serve their country.
<hr /></blockquote> Uh oh, our resident liar is now changing what she said. teddy is not the Kennedy family. There is a differece between individual and family but she would like to ignore that now that her ignorance of the definition has proven itself.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 07:36 AM
Your accusation does not match my posts. I have given rave reviews to both Gordon Smith, and Hagle. Neither you, or Ed, has ever had a good word to say about any current Democrat. You two hate the Democratic party so much, you're both loath to acknowledge any single positive quality regardless of how many Democratic Presidents have been loved by the whole world, unlike your boy George, who is hated all over the world, and will forever be known as the President whose policies destroyed the respect of the world, for the United States, and broke all international agreements, in his quest to torture, and steal. Even Rosevelt, has recieved character assasinations from the right, on this forum.

Jealousy of all the beloved, Democratic leaders, very evident in Ed's posts, consistantly.

I believe the British headlines said it bets...."How can forty million people, be so dumb" Adter the right went right back out and re-elected a known liar, and the worst President in the history of our country, with the worst majority Congress, ever.

Ed loves to call others stupid? Yet he doesn't get it that whatever Kennedy ever said about the first amnesty, Reagans Amnesty Bill, one man can't possibly gaurantee the future performance, of an entire government. But then, he's still out there dneying that Valarie Plame, was a covert agent, along with the nutty right wing pundits, who are still trying to say that Saddam was involved with alQaeda, and that we found WMD's in Iraq.

While the extreme nutty right, is still delusional, many former Republicans of note, have left the Republican party, due to it's present ideology. The leaders left, are a far cry from conservative.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 08:31 AM
In fact, yes, I avoid critical comments about some Americans who have suffered great loss in the name of our country, and I have never said a bad word about Bob Dole.

To compare the loss of an arm, however, to having to endure seeing two brothers get their brains blown out, and never know when the clip will re-emerge, for the rest of your life, along with your family, for decades afterward, and after having also lost a brother and sister, formally, as they served our country, is partisan vitriosity at it's worst, IMO.

An arm, for a family, speaking for myself, I'd gladly give my arm.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 08:42 AM
More proof of your flawed thinking processes. This post as absurd, along with everything else you write on here.

As I said, Ed, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posting to, or about me. I made the offer to do the same. Your love of brash attacks, and slander, prohibits any civil debate. You accuse others of lying, because you don't agree with their statements, yet you get on here and post statements which the entire world knows, are lies. have at it, but don't expect people to believe you when statistics, government documentation, from the NSE, and the CIA, prove that you're on-going lies, are wrong. You are the last person on this board who should use the words hypocrit or liar.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
07-02-2007, 08:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As I said, Ed, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posting to, or about me. <hr /></blockquote> As I said to you, NO. If you are going to post a lie on here I will post a reply as I see fit. If you don't like my replies handle it however you would like, one suggestion would be to ignore it but that is your decision to make.

eg8r

eg8r
07-02-2007, 08:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Neither you, or Ed, has ever had a good word to say about any current Democrat. <hr /></blockquote> Well lets just say, every time you regurgitate a democrat sound byte I find one more example of why there is nothing really good to say about the current democrats.

However, there is some recent proof that shows this is just another lie of yours. In one of the posts about amnesty, I mentioned the 9 democrats that were against the amnesty bill were part of the "heros" in Congress. So there you go, you lied, I caught you again (it happens so often it is not even a game anymore), and there are 9 democrats whom I believe are "heros" in respect to amnesty. The number 9 might be wrong, I have not gone back to the post to see the exact number, but even one proves you are wrong.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 09:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
However, there is some recent proof that shows this is just another lie of yours. In one of the posts about amnesty, I mentioned the 9 democrats that were against the amnesty bill were part of the "heros" in Congress. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh really? Another lie, Ed? I think I'd recall such a statement. Do give us some proof that you called Democrats, heros.

Also, while you're at it, are you ready to admit that you lied over and over about Valarie Plame's status? Or are you still lying about that?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
07-02-2007, 09:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> However, there is some recent proof that shows this is just another lie of yours. In one of the posts about amnesty, I mentioned the 9 democrats that were against the amnesty bill were part of the "heros" in Congress. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle stating a stupid lie her butt could not back up:</font><hr> Oh really? Another lie, Ed? I think I'd recall such a statement. Do give us some proof that you called Democrats, heros.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I have to be honest, this is definitely worth it. You run your mouth over and over and I have yet to see you act honestly in one single political thread. So here we go...If you would please go to the first post in this thread (just to help you along I am the one who started the thread...) you will find this statement... [ QUOTE ]
Now for the heros of Congress (as far as this bill is concerned)...
Quote: this portion was quote from the original source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opposing the move were 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25 Reps and 9 Dems and an independent have it correct and they are the only ones that truly are looking to increase national security.
<hr /></blockquote> Well that did not take long. Like I said in another post, you don't think. You just regurgitate your soundbytes.

Oh yeah, Plame is nothing more than a glorified secretary.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 01:05 PM
Unlike you, I'll admit when I make a mistake, although, I wasn't referring to a broad statement, without naming amyone, you did call them heros. But, in the same post, your credibility in once again shot to hell.....

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, Plame is nothing more than a glorified secretary.
<hr /></blockquote>

You're the only person I know of who would continue to spread this lie, other than a few radical right wing nuts, like you. Where do you get off calling anyone else a liar, and making such a ridiculous statement, after the Special Counsel, the Director of the CIA, the Senate Investigation Committee, and Valarie Plame's sworn statement, before Congress.

You are the ultimate in spreading lies, Ed. Only the nuttiest of the nuts deny what the whole world knows, that Plame was covert, and a specialist in WMD's, involved in Covert operations, as a NOC agent. Now you prove otherwise, or please suspend your accusations of lies.

Ronald Reagan's Amnesty Bill, is easily accessed, just Google Reagan's Amnesty Bill....also, Plames correct status, accessable through the Special Prosecutors, statements to the court, and her CIA approved testimony.

If there's a liar here, it's you.

eg8r
07-02-2007, 02:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike you, I'll admit when I make a mistake, although, I wasn't referring to a broad statement, without naming amyone, you did call them heros. But, in the same post, your credibility in once again shot to hell..... <hr /></blockquote> If you are referring to the credibility I might have been "building" with you, then who cares?

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you get off calling anyone else a liar, and making such a ridiculous statement, after the Special Counsel, the Director of the CIA, the Senate Investigation Committee, and Valarie Plame's sworn statement, before Congress. <hr /></blockquote> Hey, believe what you want. It is no secret that these people lie all the time while in front of Congress. If you don't believe me pay attention next time Harry and Nancy tell Congress it is in the best interests of our national security to bring our troops home right now, or when they say it is in the country's best interests to support an amnesty bill.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the ultimate in spreading lies, Ed. <hr /></blockquote> One of these days, when reality jerks your head out of the sand, you will read your own posts and see just how dishonest you have been with everyone.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you prove otherwise, or please suspend your accusations of lies.
<hr /></blockquote> Sorry, but you have no authority over what I will and will not post. I did like the wording of this quote, where did you copy it from? Given the verbage of your past posts, this is not your common use of vocabulary.

Talk to you later jGayle.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 03:46 PM
Her statements were approved by the Director of the CIA, and her boss, in a written testimony, which was read to the committee. She was also confirmed by the Special Prosecutor's office, as a covert NOC, agency operative in WMD. How does that lead you to believe that she was just a secretary.

If you think you have any credibility with me, you're dreaming.

Go have another twinkie, and lick your wounds after losing in the last election. Better get used to it. The majority of people are saying, in a number of polls, that they'd rather have the Democrats running things.

Hey, believe what you want. It is no secret that these people lie all the time while in front of Congress. If you don't believe me pay attention next time Harry and Nancy tell Congress it is in the best interests of our national security to bring our troops home right now, or when they say it is in the country's best interests to support an amnesty bill.

Definately one of your more absurd statements, included in thousands from which to chose.

Sworn testimoney, to the Senate Investigative committee, and confirmed by three appointed officials, and you refuse to admit you lies about Plame. Interesting since sworn testimony is exactly why six or seven people have resigned from the Department Of Justice, to avoid haveing to testify about rove and Gonzales corrupting the entire DOJ, in order to use it to throw the next election. No accident that only Fox News, declared Gore the winner, early, sending many Demorats home, who thought he had won.

Poor Eggravater, voted twice for the worst President in history, and now you're shown up to be among those....

"How Can Forty Million People Be SO Dumb?"

Better stock up on the twinkies before 08...

Gayle in MD
07-02-2007, 04:46 PM
Ronald Reagan on Immigration:
Conservative Republican have been outdoing each other in claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Ironically, however, many conservatives are simultaneously outdoing each other in advocating immigration restriction - a stance Reagan would probably have abhorred.

As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon points out in this book (pg. 119), Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement for all workers throughout North America in his November 1979 speech announcing his candidacy for the presidency. As early as 1952 - at a time when US immigration policy was still governed by the highly restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 - Reagan gave a speech embracing nearly unlimited immigration:


I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here . . . I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people. (emphasis added).

Cannon, pg. 119.


Almost forty years later, in his January 1989 farewell message to the nation, Reagan struck a similar theme:


I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. (emphasis added)


In between, Reagan pushed for his 1979 North American accord proposal (which eventually became the NAFTA treaty), and signed the 1986 immigration reform law that amnestied almost 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for relatively weak enforcement measures.

As his 1979 proposal and his support for the 1986 amnesty suggest, Reagan did not demonize illegal immigrants as all too many conservatives do today. He sought instead to enable them to legalize their status, and helped set many on the road to citizenship. In a 1977 radio address, he criticized "the illegal alien fuss" and suggested that illegal aliens may "actually [be] doing work our own people won't do."

While Reagan's rhetorical embrace of "anyone" who wants to come the US probably should be taken literally, it certainly indicates a generally positive attitude towards large-scale immigration from all parts of the world.

The fact that Reagan supported something does not by itself prove that it is right, or even that it is the right position for conservatives. Reagan certainly made his share of mistakes, such as the extremely grave error of trading arms for hostages with Iran. But as Cannon notes, Reagan's positive attitude towards immigration was not just an isolated issue position, but was integrally linked to his generally optimistic and open vision of America. I would add that it also drew on his understanding that America is not a zero-sum game between immigrants and natives - just as he also recognized that it is not a zero-sum game between the rich and the poor. Immigration could promote prosperity and advancement for both groups in much the same way that free trade benefits both Americans and foreigners. Reagan probably did not have a detailed understanding of the economics of comparative advantage which underpins this conclusion. But he surely understood it intuitively. Those who reject Reagan's position on immigration must, if they are to be consistent, also reject much of the rest of his approach to economic and social policy. Today's conservatives can argue for immigration restrictions if they so choose. But they should not claim the mantle of Reagan in doing so.

<font color="red">Hence, Reagans Amnesty "DREAM" along with trading arms for hostages, with the Contras, and his promotion of NAFTA, certainly doesn't put him in a category of being far sighted, or particularly, looking back, good for our country. In fact, he sounds a lot like Bush, only with a bit more hollywood rhetoric, and a quaint, Mr. Smith quality, which works so well with the Repubs. End result, Disaster! </font color>

eg8r
07-02-2007, 08:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Go have another twinkie <hr /></blockquote> Only if you stay off the pills.

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of people are saying, in a number of polls, that they'd rather have the Democrats running things.
<hr /></blockquote> ROFL, you really have to be the most naive person on this planet if you believe that pile of poo. The majority of people believe these Democrats are sending Congress down the tubes to the worst rating in history. You are a joke or those pills you are popping are STRONG.

Even Pelosi knows she has done a crappy job. Your favorite Dems put our troops in danger by withholding funds because they just had to have a terrorist-pleasing withdrawal date directly after being told not to do so. Pelosi has been bad for America up to this point. She is a failure and the 14% approval rating is proof. And to top it off the Dems are pushing for amnesty 3 to 1 in Congress. Yeah, that is some bunch you are siding with. The biggest amensty bill of all time and your guys are pushing it 3 to 1 that is just great.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-03-2007, 08:13 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go have another twinkie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if you stay off the pills.
<font color="red">Keep it up, Eg, I'm presently accumulating a folder on you. My attorney has told me I have many more rights than I originally thought. A 62 year old woman, who runs five miles a day, and wears a size five, wouldn't last long if she was a drug addict. Bring the slander on, and you'll be praying for more than scholarships. I'm asking, again, that you cease and desist, from slandering me, from posting to me, and from posting slander about me.
Gayle in Md.</font color>

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of people are saying, in a number of polls, that they'd rather have the Democrats running things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROFL, you really have to be the most naive person on this planet if you believe that pile of poo. The majority of people believe these Democrats are sending Congress down the tubes to the worst rating in history. You are a joke or those pills you are popping are STRONG.

Even Pelosi knows she has done a crappy job. Your favorite Dems put our troops in danger by withholding funds because they just had to have a terrorist-pleasing withdrawal date directly after being told not to do so. Pelosi has been bad for America up to this point. She is a failure and the 14% approval rating is proof. And to top it off the Dems are pushing for amnesty 3 to 1 in Congress. Yeah, that is some bunch you are siding with. The biggest amensty bill of all time and your guys are pushing it 3 to 1 that is just great.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-05-2007, 09:52 AM
I suppose you admire him for this, also.

And Rumsfeld, pharmeceuticals, the Bush's, which run up oil prices every time their in office, with their policies, and their close Friends, bin Laden's family, and Cheney's conflict of interests, which led to Halliburton stealing, unchecked, taxpayers money, in Iraq. If you can't see through these Republican Crooks, it's because you can't admit you've supported fascists for decades.

Reagan supported Saddam, ever after he committed Genocide. The Republican policies, led to alQaeda, and 9/11, hence, Bush did everything he could do to block the 9/11 investigation altogether. Bush has been in bed with bin Laden's family, for decades, hence, he flew them all out of the country, and also allowed him to escape from Afghanistan.

For all thing fascists, and treasonist, look to the Republican party, including outing a covert CIA Operative, instead of being saide tracked with non issues like real estate deals, sex between consenting adults.

Ronald Reagan, more than any other president, laid the groundwork, for all the mess we have right now in the Middloe East, and Bush Sr., exascerbated it. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Prescott Bush, was in bed with Hitler.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
07-09-2007, 09:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gmd:</font><hr> Go have another twinkie <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Only if you stay off the pills. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gmd:</font><hr> Keep it up, Eg, I'm presently accumulating a folder on you. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>Per the quotes above, you started the slander.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-09-2007, 10:29 AM
Twinkies are not illegal. I don't use drugs. Also, I've made every effort to enlist you in a truce toward more reasonable responses between us. I don't think insults add to the debate. Slander, is another thing.

eg8r
07-09-2007, 11:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Twinkies are not illegal. <hr /></blockquote> Neither are pills. Instead of dragging this on, I should am sorry for the post, it was over the top. I responded in the same manner to your post as you did to me but twinkies were already used.

eg8r

pooltchr
07-09-2007, 03:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Twinkies are not illegal. <hr /></blockquote> Neither are pills. Instead of dragging this on, I should am sorry for the post, it was over the top. I responded in the same manner to your post as you did to me but twinkies were already used.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

You should have said "drinking the kool-aid", but that one has already been worn out by our friend from Maryland. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve