Cynical Nation

Ok,
As you know, I do not like Bush (I think noone would argue about that) and I consider him the worst president in the history of the country (past and future!). But if there was one (1) thing that he did right the last 8 years was the immigration bill. That bill was just fine. The senate made a huge error turning down that bill.

>...I consider him the worst president in the history of the country (past and future!)

Blue, you are now officially my hero. I've argued with liberals who insisted that Bush was the worst president in the history of the U.S., and I thought they were undereducated morons. Then Jane Smiley came along and raised the ante. Not only was Bush the worst president in history, she argued, he was the worst imaginable president. Well, I'm proud to say that you trump even that idiocy, by asserting that Bush is not only the worst president in history, but of the future as well.

And BTW, what aspect of Bush's bill did you like most? Was it the ass-kissing of rich-ass corporations? Or the thumbing of the nose at existing U.S. law?

I hope you can see through cynical humor (that was the "future" part). The immigration law was necessary so millions of illegal immigrants get legalized and there is better control (so we know who they are and what they are doing) and the borders are protected better. The idea is to enhance protection from terrorism. You sound like you have pre-911 mentality, as Bush would say.

Poor Blue, you can't seem to get ANYthing right!

THANK God for Webb, Tester and McCluskey! Those 3 Dems helped shelve this monstrosity for good.

Why is it that every time a Liberal tries to argue in favor of "open borders" they always wind up making complete and utter fools of themselves and in short order?....I almost feel sorry for them...ALMOST.

Look, the ONLY reasonable argument in favor of tolerating a certain amount of illegal immigration is the "cheap labor" argument advanced by Moderate Republicans and some very wealthy Dems.

BUT this BIll would've eradicated ALL of the existing "cheap labor" by legalizing them and turning them instantly into "lazy Americans," eligible for WIC, food stamps, SSI, etc.

THAT would've created a "cheap labor" vacuum and the need for ever more new "cheap labor"/illegal immigration!

The ONLY illegals that we need to "keep track of" are the potential terrorists and criminals, but since NONE of those illegals even want American citizenship, this Bill wouldn't have given those who despise America any reason to "come out of the shadows."

As to the rest of the illegals (the overwhelming bulk, drawn here by illegal/below Min Wage jobs) fining and jailing (for 2nd offenses) the illicit employers, would dry up those illicit jobs and those folks would simply self-deport.

This was a terrible Bill that would've created a "cheap labor vacuum" and the need for ever more illegal immigration down the line.

Again, THANK God for Tester, Webb and McCluskey.

Barry, in reference to your reaction to Blue, are you being sarcastic or do you agree with him? and what did jane smiley say to up the ante?

sorry, its morning

Rachel, I disagree with Blue on this one but I do admire his ability to achieve rhetorical excesses I had previously believed unobtainable. ;-)

Rachel,
Barry usually disagrees with me for a year or two until he realizes I was right :) An example is the Iraq war.

Anyway, I was being sarcastic when I wrote that he is the worst "future" president. Of course, and I was not being serious. Believe it or not there is a possibility (at least theoretically) that there will be eventually a president worse than Bush. Chilly thought.

Did you take ANY history in school at all BW???

James Buchanan is considered, by most thoughtful people (ie. those who read at least a little history) the worst President in US history.

In recent years, Carter was by far the worst President - creating many of the Islamo-fascist problems we face today....saddling the country with STAGFLATION (the worst economy since the Depression), without ANY worldwide calamity that caused it.

LBJ escalated Vietnam on a false attack ("the Gulf of Tonkin"), taking a page out of America's earlier history, where we used, what is believed to have been an accidental explosion on an American ship (the Maine) to start a war with Spain (The Spanish-American War).

LBJ began a disastrous "war on poverty" that actually increased the number of poor in America by 1980 and in so doing ceded the South and most of the West to the GOP.

Nixon was also a disaster! He presided over disatrous "wage and price controls," continued the Keynesian idiocies that Democrats LBJ before him and Carter after him happily subscribed to, saying, at one point, "We're all Keynesians now."

Buchanan, Carter and LBJ are probably the three worst Presidents in U.S. history,l with Nixon not all that far behind LBJ. Nixon gets some positive credit for opening up trade with China.

"Did you take ANY history in school at all BW???"

No. Maybe I should take classes from Ann Coulter, who according to you is an excellent historian.

Just read a little, BW, that's all.

It's not that hard.

A cursory reading would make anyone aware that America's Founders based their economic model on Adam Smith's teachings.

That the US has consistently wrangled itself into many, many foreign engagements on dubious events, if not outright falsehoods ("Remember the Maine," for the Spanish-American war, The Gulf of Tonkin, for Vietnam, and The Lusitania - an American ship that WAS carrying arms and munitions to the English, sunk by the Germans creating our entry into WW I).

People who KNOW things like that, know that our current war in Iraq (precipiated by Saddam's refusal to comply with 1441, because he needed to maintain his defensive strategy of "Detterence by Doubt") was neither "illegal," "immoral," or at all out of character, given America's past history. Since America became a world economic power toward the end of the 19th Century, it has readilly protected our commercial interests abroad with military power....in fact, we've done that since Jefferson attacked the Barbary States (Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli) for taking American ships and their crews while sailing the Mediterranean Sea.

You'd also know about James Buchanan (who pretty much assured the advent of the Civil War), Andrew Johnson, who was impeached, at least in part, because he didn't want to punish the South after the Civil War. Congress passed a law that a President couldn't remove a Cabinet member without Congressional approval. Johnson fired Secretary of War William Stanton, for demanding that the South be punished and Johnson was impeached.

Johnson was also the first President to try and saddle Americans with an income tax. It was so unpopular that it was forced to be withdrawn, much like the recent pro-illegal alien Bill.

His supporting that income tax, created a lot of the public support for his later Impeachment.

Better days huh!

A time when Americans fought against excessive taxation, instead of supporting dainty ideas like "income equality" and "redistribution."

Those were better days indeed!

Blue, seriously, how could you, how could ANY American, be for legalizing 20 million Mexicans and guaranteeing another 40 millions pouring over our borders in the future to await the next amnesty bill?

What are you thinking? I know you don't own a large corporation that profits from cheap illegal labor.

They are criminals. They broke into this country.

We need to enforce our laws. That is all we need to do. Bush is too much of a corporate suckass to enforce the law.

The vast majority of Americans don't want them here. We don't need them here. They need to leave. Their children need to be stripped of citizenship, so that they don't anchor the next generation.

They aren't mostly honest and hard working, they are highly criminal when compared to whites and other immigrants. They are uneducated. We don't need them.

How can you not see the utter tragedy of weakening our country in every way by rewarding criminals?

"The immigration law was necessary so millions of illegal immigrants get legalized..." (BH)


"Blue...How can you not see the utter tragedy of weakening our country in every way by rewarding criminals?" (BH)


Blue only makes statements...he doesn't defend them, which, in his case is actually all too often a very wise decision, given that many of them are pretty much indefensible....like this one.

I never made the first statement JMK. Hey look, I'm JMK, I think that George Washington talked on the telephone!

Stop being a dumbass, dumbass.

"I never made the first statement JMK. Hey look, I'm JMK, I think that George Washington talked on the telephone!

"Stop being a dumbass, dumbass." (BH)


Hey! You inadvertently posted under my name.

Envy is the by far the "truest" form of flattery....thanks, yet again. I AM really, really flattered!!!

Seriously BH, but I must say, there's really no need for such envy, I'm just a regular guy.......OK, OK, I'm being modest, but really, I don't want to go on and on about myself, that might seem untoward...but I am enthralled by this whole mentor-mentee thing you've seemed to have embraced....I've never really been a "mentor" to anyone before.

WoW!

Once again, however, I have to correct you - the phrase "technology outstripping the law," ONLY applies to technological advances the earlier law couldn't have envisioned, like the emails, the cell phone, RPGs, chemical weapons, etc., etc.

Since the 2nd and 4th Amendments DIDN'T take the way these new technologies impact public safety, etc., it's left for lawyers (to argue), judges (to decide) and legislators (to write laws) and adapt THOSE "old laws" to the new realities.

That's why despite the 2nd Amendment's very clearly spelled out "right to bear arms," we the people have decided that some weapons are verbotten (I mentioned some above).

Likewise communication technology has also "outstripped the law," and since Jefferson et all COULDN'T really anticipate the changes in modern communication technology and how it would impact society, the "protections" offered various "new technologies" have to be....well, "hashed out," might be the best word for it.

Cell phone calls, for instance, can't even be protected from private individuals poaching calls with a scanner, and what's more, some would argue (and THEY DO) that since such communications are literally "bounced off" one or more "public-use" sattelites, they must be considered "open communications" and thus, "fair game."

Makes sense, when you think about it...and I even think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would agree.

Simple mistake BH, you didn't realize what "technology outstripping the law" really meant.

"The immigration law was necessary so millions of illegal immigrants get legalized..." (BH)


Oh yes! That was BW's quote...that should've been obvious, but- HEY! THAT wasn't the reason for th-

And yo-

Does this mean, you don't envy me....and don't want to be my mentee???

Well, this has been quite a rollercoaster ride for me....and I was all set to commend you on your taste in mentors, etc.

Hyuk! The 1st Amendment only applies to what it was meant to: personal letters hand written with quill pens! It nevah intendud to protect privacy! See! It never says privacee!

Nucular bombs are firearms! Weee!