Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[packsaddle 753]

Oops! Yep, I blew the Nixon/Ford handoff. Chalk that up to presidential dyslexia on my part. So 28 out of 44...and your point is?

Regarding paranoia, when specific persons made (and continue to make) certain specific threats on my life, that is not paranoia and I carry for that reason. My neighborhood isn't nearly as upscale as yours, Brent. Nevertheless, the general public with their nameless faces causes me no fear whatsoever. In my case the threat has names and faces and I distinguish them from the general public. But...wait a minute, come to think of it, I have a neighbor who lets his dog run loose once in a while so I guess we're not really crime-free here (leash laws). Better load up tonight, I guess, you never know.

My co-worker, by the way, is a lifer for NRA and a private gun dealer. Also somewhat of a dumbxxx.

And as for carrying the first aid kit, well, Brent you know the motto. The difference is that unless there's something specific, the kind of threat that calls for deadly force is imaginary and highly improbable. Its all in your mind, Brent. On the other hand, I (or one of the boys) will likely get a scratch or a cut or something on an outing. Happens all the time. I just slap on some first aid (but keep an eye peeled for the desperados, just in case).

 

Can't disagree with Kahuna too much regarding the Carter presidency. My take on it was that Carter was way too honest and straight-up in his approach. He just wasn't cut from the kind of cloth that gave him the ability to work in an environment of deception. Ford had a similar honesty streak and we pretty much gave him the boot as well. What does that say about us?

 

Prairie Scouter, what I remember about the Reagan years is reminiscent of this administration. They came in critical of Carter's deficit spending and then ran it through the roof themselves. Plot the deficits and the so-called 'conservatives' are, in fact, the big spenders of all time. This administration has made intergenerational theft a fine art. But the big thing I pin on Reagan has to do with the HIV crisis. His administration had all the information they needed to understand the scope of the problem and its potential human impact globally. They dragged their feet largely because they thought it was a 'gay' problem. This lag in funding and study probably has cost millions of lives worldwide. Par for the course for social Darwinists, I suppose.

[BrentAllen 10]

It's all in my head?? Wow! That is great news! I thought all those stories on the nightly news and in the paper about murder, rape and robbery were actually true! Boy, do I feel silly!

Carter was just flat out incompetent. He was a control freak, to the point that he couldn't even delegate scheduling use of the presidential tennis courts to anyone else - he had to even control that! Unfortunately, Georgia will probably never see one of our own in the White House again, thanks to the disaster Carter unleashed on the country.

More revisionist history about Reagan and AIDS. Reagan asked Majic Johnson to lead his effort on fighting AIDS and Majic agreed - until his lefty friends found out and said - "Man, you must be crazy! You can't help a Republican!!" So Majic resigned, and joined the chorus on the left about how Reagan wasn't doing anything, and was to blame for the entire worldwide spread of AIDS. And exactly what was he slow to fund? 20 years later, there still isn't a cure for AIDS. And with all the education and information provided in the last 20 years, there are still tons of people having unprotected sex, and acquiring HIV. In Africa, the men actually think they can get rid of AIDS by having sex with a virgin, so they are raping toddlers. I suppose Reagan is to blame for this as well. Bottom line is some people will not change their behavior, no matter what. Blaming Reagan for the spread of AIDS is tantamount to blaming him for the sun going down every evening. He had just as much to do with both.

[Hunt 11]

"Those empowered on the right, denounce and isolate the likes of David Dukes (rare as they may be). Those empowered on the left, celebrate and embrace Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, and scores of others like them (no matter how often they creep out of the woodwork to exploit some sad event)."

 

I don't agree with your comparisons. You have to pair Michael Moore with somebody like Ann Coulter if you want to be fair, and she's certainly been embraced. I don't like Al Sharpton at all, but David Duke is much, much worse. And there's another difference between the two--Sharpton has never been elected to any public office, but Duke was--when he ran as a Republican. I would equate Sharpton with somebody more like Strom Thurmond--somebody who the party has to acknowledge but keep a bit at arm's length--as Trent Lott learned the hard way. A better comparison with Duke would be somebody like former Representative Cynthia McKinney, who was ostracized by her own party and defeated in the Democratic primary when she said Bush may have known about the Sept. 11 attacks in advance.

 

So again, both parties have really really extreme people that they push out, uncomfortably extreme people they keep but try to keep in the background, and regular extreme people who are in on the real action. Oh, and both the left and right have loud-mouthed obnoxious pundits who will say anything to get attention and ratings.

 

(Side note: David Dukes is a fine actor--I saw him on Broadway as Salieri in Amadeus--lots of people, including me, mix him up with David Duke.)(Edited: I should have said "was" a fine actor. I just looked him up and he died of a heart attack in 2000 at age 55, while David Duke lives on.)(This message has been edited by Hunt)

[BrentAllen 10]

Cynthia McKinney is back in office. She ran again after losing, and won. Another great embarassment for the State of Georgia, along with Carter.

The difference is - the Republican Party wants nothing to do with David Duke. The Democratic Party embraces Al Sharpton, and while he has never won, he did run for President as a Democrat. So has Jessie Jackson. Duke was elected as a Representative, served one term and was history. He is a small blip on the historical radar, whereas Sharpton, Jackson, Michael Moore etc.... are main stream players in the Democratic party. BTW, did David Duke ever address the Republican National Convention? Remember who all spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Doesn't look like they are keeping them at arm's length to me.

[Hunt 11]

Well, you're right about McKinney. Too bad. I notice you don't mention Ann Coulter or Strom Thurmond--I wouldn't either, if I were you.

We could play this game of which party has the most extreme, embarrassing, and obnoxious associations all day, but I still stand by my point, which is that to somebody of more moderate views, there is no significant difference between the far right and the far left in terms of how obnoxious or annoying they are. Of course, the closer you are to one extreme or another, the less annoying they seem to you, because you agree with them on the substance of their arguments.

[BrentAllen 10]

Sure, I will mention Coulter and Thurmond. Thurmond was a segregationist, but he never was a Grand Cyclops of the KKK, as was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Coulter writes conservative columns for a living, and you go to conservative magazines or web pages to read her opinions. The difference is the lefty columnists appear in so-called mainstream publications - Eric Alterman at MSNBC, the entire editorial board at the New York Times.

I will tell you the real difference between Republicans and Democrats, with a couple of examples. Trent Lott makes some comment at Thurmond's birthday about how he wishes Strom had won the presidency back in the 50's. For that, he loses his leadership position in the Senate. Compare that with Jessie Jackson counseling and offering spiritual guidance to Clinton after his affair with Monica - while Jessie is having his own affair with a staffer! Is Jessie reprimanded or ostracized? No - he is invited to speak at the party's National Convention! Sharpton should have gone to jail for his part in the Tawana Brawley fiasco, but instead he is invited to also speak at the Democratic National Convention! Voters do not forget what these people have done, and they then see the Democratic Party embrace these individuals. They see the values exhibited by the leaders of the party. Is it any wonder Republicans now control the Presidency, the House and the Senate?

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

So, Brent, you use the local nightly news to get your view of how safe your neighborhood is? That's, um, interesting. Have you heard the old TV news saying, "if it bleeds, it leads"? If you want to use that as your guide, you must also believe that all blacks are murdering gang members and all Latinos are drug addicts. My, what a wonderful view of the world you must have. I bet there aren't enough weapons on the planet for you to feel safe.

 

The real problem with our political parties today isn't a debate over who's got the most idiots to trot out. They both have WAY more than they should. The problem is that you can't come up with a list of true statesmen from either party that would make you proud.

 

Since somebody brought up the political conventions, who was that guy, a Senator, I think, who the Republicans trotted out at the last convention that proceeded to pretty much go balistic? Can't remember his name, but I have to admit that that was the highlight of both conventions for me. I was surprised his brain didn't come blasting out of the top of his head before he was done.(This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

[gwd-scouter 11]

Senator Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia. When Miller was being interviewed, he also challenge Chris Matthews (Hardball) to a duel. Fun stuff!

[BrentAllen 10]

Hey, P-S, keep the posts coming - you really crack me up!

Even though the crime rate in Dunwoody is very low, unlike you (I guess), I do have to venture out of my neighborhood. I drive all over Atlanta and north Georgia, so yes, I do watch the news to stay informed. My Alma Mater, Georgia Tech, is right in the heart of downtown Atlanta, and I've had some very good friends and fraternity brothers who have had some really bad experiences with "thugs." So feel free to ignore things if you wish - that is your choice.

That gentleman was possibly the last conservative Democrat in the country - Senator Zell Miller, from Georgia. Retired Marine, former Governor of Georgia - someone this state is very proud of! He has several books out: "Corps Values: Everything You Need To Know I Learned In The Marines", "A National Party No More: The Conscience of A Conservative Democrat" (about the decline of the Democrat Party), and "A Deficit of Decency". Unfortunately, liberals probably wouldn't understand or appreciate them.

No, the problem today IS how the parties treat any idiots that show up in their party. Republicans run them off, Democrats embrace them. (Need I also mention Senator "Leaky" Leahy, who, in 1987, was forced to resign from his position as Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information to a reporter? Or Barney Frank, who's housemate, Steve Gobie, was running a male prostitution ring out of his taxpayer-funded apartment? He was reprimanded by the House not only for that, but also for using his office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets.) No, there is no comparison to the parties in this respect, and it is not lost on the electorate.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

Brent,

 

EXACTLY thanks for chiming in

 

I get a little tired of stating the obvious. Either folks on the left dont thoroughly examine their words before they say them, or they intentionally bring in red-herrings in an attempt to wear down their opposition. I tend to give folks credit for being intelligent enough to recognize whats clearly observable. Thus, Im left to conclude its just a tactic to achieve a stalemate on an un-winnable position, by exasperating those who wish to remain faithful to logic and a reasoned perspective.

 

BTW, I offer my apologies to the late Mr. Dukes (not David Duke).

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Hey, Brent, I live to entertain

 

Well, Brent, I grew up in inner city of Chicago, so I don't think I need to bow to anyone in regards to how to survive in a harsh urban environment. But, those are isolated areas, and the vast majority of the spaces in our cities and rural areas are safe to travel in. That's just reality. So, not ignoring anything, just trying to keep it in perspective.

 

And Rooster, like you, I'm tired of stating the obvious. If you guys want to think that conservatives all walk around in white suits with a heavenly glow about them, you go right ahead. My thinking is that both sides are decidedly "grey", and both sides are perfectly capable of playing the political game very dirty. I don't get surprised by either side very easily any more (although "outing" a CIA agent as political revenge seems to be really "out there", if true). I don't see a lot to be proud of from either party these days. Frankly, I don't see a lot to be gained by counting how many wackos there are on either side of the aisle. There's enough on both sides to make the matter kind of moot, don't you think?

[Trevorum 24]

Prairie,

I get so weary of shrill partisan bickering. The problem I think is that the two sides ('two' sides being itself an artificial contruct) have very different world views and, as a result, tend to argue past each other. As you have alluded, conservatives tend to see the world in absolutes - black and white - while liberals tend to see the world in 'shades of gray'.

 

Of course, you may disagree ...

[Rooster7 11]

Prairie_Scouter,

 

And Rooster, like you, I'm tired of stating the obvious. If you guys want to think that conservatives all walk around in white suits with a heavenly glow about them, you go right ahead.

 

Characterizing my position as being one that purports all conservatives as angels is a straw man argument. Its a false representation of my views which offers opponents of my actual views, an easy target to knock down. Allow me to do it for you Not all conservatives are angels.

 

Now that we have that out of the way, lets return to the real argument. As a group, those empowered on the political left exploit nearly every newsworthy circumstance to distort and/or defame those on the political right. Furthermore, they will embrace almost anyone who aligns themselves against those on the political right. Ironically, the tactic that you just used against me (straw man argument) to misrepresent my viewpoint, is commonly employed by the political left to distort the truth. Its quite common. Whats truly sad, many in TV broadcasting (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) and the print media (NY Times, Washington Post, LA times, etc.) take these distortions and run with them as if they were fact.

 

Frankly, I don't see a lot to be gained by counting how many wackos there are on either side of the aisle. There's enough on both sides to make the matter kind of moot, don't you think?

 

No I dont agreebecause when one tallies the whacko-ideologues from each side, and how they are treated by the respective political parties that they claim to represent (or at least sympathize with), it becomes increasingly obvious that the politically empowered left (i.e. the Democratic Party leaders and their elected representatives in government) has stepped off the deep end. This is the crux of my argument. A democratic president will invite an Al Sharpton to the Whitehouse to hear his views. No Republican president will ever invite the likes of a David Duke to the Whitehouse. It just doesnt happen. The reason for all of this is very simple. One must conclude that either the leaders of the Democratic Party are within half an inch of being the extreme left themselves, or they think that they can exploit these buffoons to gain the votes of their supporters without any consequence. Unfortunately, many Democrats apparently fail to see this, or dont care, or God forbid agree with the likes of Al Sharpton.

 

Trevorum,

 

I get so weary of shrill partisan bickering. The problem I think is that the two sides ('two' sides being itself an artificial contruct) have very different world views and, as a result, tend to argue past each other.

 

I agree. Each party represents worldviews that are polar opposites. I believe, much of this, has to do with our views on humanityour natural tendencies. But ultimately, I think it has more to do with our perception of God and how we should view our relationship to and with him. Although many constituents of the left and right may not even recognize God, I believe the impetus for each side of the political spectrum is rooted in their basic views regarding mans nature and our relationship with God.

 

As you have alluded, conservatives tend to see the world in absolutes - black and white - while liberals tend to see the world in 'shades of gray'.

 

I agree partially. Many on the right (not all) view morality as black and whiteand unchanging. However, not every circumstance allows us (mere mortalssimple children of God) to quickly discern two sides that are definitively right or wrong. Yet, there is a right and a wronga good and an evil or to use your vernacular, a black and a white. Most of the time, it is very clear. Sometimes, its a little more difficult to figure out. With that said, believing in black and white morality does not preclude one from having compassion. Although, those on the political left would like everyone to believe otherwise.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Rooster,

I would suppose that the Democrats have more wacky types in their midsts because they are a more inclusive party. That doesn't mean that those people necessarily get elected, but they are free to have their say. I'd measure their effectiveness as a force within their party by how much of their agenda ends up in the party planks of their platform. The answer is, not much. On the other hand, didn't the far right of the Republican party get much of their agenda included in the party platform? Asking; I don't really know.

 

Now, I'll agree that the Democrats, at this time, are more likely to jump on perceived wrongdoings by the Republicans, and I think that this is strictly a matter of them not being the party in power at this time. The Republicans did the same kind of thing during the Clinton Administration. And the strategy is the same, and that is, to keep the party in power distracted in order to, in effect, slow them down. It's a political art perfected by both parties. Unfortunately, and I mean this sincerely because I hate to see any administration cause harm to the world's perception of the U.S., this administration has given us so much for the opposing party, and the world, to have serious problems with. From my side of the fence, I think it'll take at least 20 years to fix the damage with our allies, and my kids and their kids will probably be paying for the economic damage that this administration has done.

 

And, I'm sorry, but there's just no way that I'm going to agree that conservatives have gotten some right to the moral high ground here. It just isn't so.

 

But, in the meantime, there's a certain entertainment value that goes along with all this as it plays out. Soon, we'll have dueling commercials on the appoinment of the next Supreme Court justice. Side one, Alito as the best candidate ever to be put forward for any court at any time in any universe. Side two, Alito as the candidate allied with the forces of pure evil. And the ongoing story of "Scooter" Libby. Will he "take one for the team"? Will Rove be dragged down as well? Will we enjoy more tax cuts that we have no money to pay for? These stories, and others, will continue to play out as we head into the mid-term elections. There's enough mud for everybody to sling, I think.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Ok, here is a Republican from Brent's home town to use as an example of what we are talking about in these last few pages. I ask each of you to put on your critical thinking hats instead of your critical hats and make a decision on this person's worth as a politician. Is this person left, right or in the center? Is he trying to help people or hurt people? How do we weigh his worth?

 

The Gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Newt Leroy Gingrich, "Contract with America," he served as chairman of the 1996 Republican National Convention in San Diego. Gingrich has been called the "Hottest Entrepreneur in America", Man of the Year in 1995, co-founder of the Earning By Learning reading program for at-risk children. He has recently been involved in fund-raising efforts for the Paralympics, Cobb YWCA Battered Women's Shelter, Georgia Breast Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, North Fulton and Cobb Senior Service Centers, Juvenile Diabetes Association, American Cancer Society, Spina Bifida Association, Georgia Autism Society, Children's Wish Foundation, Zoo Atlanta, Boys' Town, Cobb County and North Fulton Habitat for Humanity, Atlanta Respite Center, Georgia Public Television, Good Samaritan Clinic, Boy Scouts of America, Roswell Vietnam War Memorial, March of Dimes, Heart Association and United Cerebral Palsy. He sponsored a Habitat for Humanity home in Cobb County in 1995, including raising all funds for the home and participating in its construction and "Newt Gingrich: Shining Knight of the Post-Reagan Right". In April of 1995, he was honored as March of Dime's "Georgia Citizen of the Year."

 

While still in high school, Gingrich started to date his geometry teacher, Jackie Battley. On June 19, 1962, he married her. Their first child was born the following year. In 1980, Gingrich asked his first wife for a divorce. In an infamous incident, Gingrich tried to discuss the terms of his divorce with his wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery for uterine cancer. In February 1981, the divorce was finalized, and in August 1981, he married his second wife, Marianne Ginther.

 

During the 1990s round of redistricting, Democrats in the Georgia state legislature tried to draw Gingrich's district out from under him by splitting most of his old territory among two other districts. At the same time, they created a new, heavily Republican 6th District located in Fulton and Cobb counties in the wealthy northern suburbs of Atlantaan area that Gingrich had never represented. However, the plan backfired when Gingrich sold his home in Carrollton and moved to Marietta in the new 6th. He easily won the Republican primary, which was tantamount to election in the new district.

 

Democrats filed 84 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a town hall meeting and college course run for political purposes. The charges were eventually dropped following an investigation by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee. However, Gingrich admitted to unintentionally giving inaccurate information to the House Ethics Committee during the course of the investigation, although the committee did not indict him on charges of intentional perjury. The matter was settled when he agreed to reimburse the Committee $300,000 for the cost of prolonging the investigation. The payment was described as a "cost assessment" rather than a "fine" by the Committee.

 

Gingrich was the author of an infamous secret memo to GOP leaders in 1995 titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control", which one of America's foremost linguists called an outline of a strategy to frame the word "liberal" as "something akin to traitor" in the media. This was in line with his once-described goal of "reshaping the entire nation through the news media" (New York Times,12/14/94).

 

The events of 1998 ended Gingrich's career in the House. In early 1998, many House Republicans had come to see him as a liability and attempted to replace him as Speaker with suburban Buffalo, New York congressman Bill Paxon. The coup failed, and Paxon was forced from office and completely retired from politics. At the end of the year, the Republicans expected big gains from the 1998 Congressional elections. In fact, Gingrich had predicted a 30-seat Republican pickup. Instead, the Republicans lost five seatsthe poorest results in 34 years for any party not in control of the White House. Gingrich took most of the blame for the defeat. Amid threats of a rebellion in his caucus, he announced that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been elected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat.

 

In Decmeber 1999, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Marianne, after revealing in August that he had been carrying on an extramarital affair for the past six years with a House clerk twenty-three years his junior, Callista Bisek. His infidelity was viewed as highly hypocritical by many critics in light of his heavy emphasis on family values while in office and close ties with the Christian Coalition. This was coupled with the fact that Gingrich handed divorce papers to Marianne after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Similarly, in 1981, Gingrich served divorce papers to his first wife, Jackie Battley, after she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. It was also noted by critics that his own adultery had taken place while he was leading moral attacks against Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal for the same behavior. On August 19, 2000, Gingrich married Callista Bisek as his third wife.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)