Conservatives: “Obama has no respect for the Constitution!”

Conservatives: “Let’s change the Constitution.”

It was hilarious watching Boehner dodge when Gregory asked him (4 TIMES!!) if extending the Bush tax cuts were paid for.

Couldn’t answer yes, refused you answer no.

Comedy gold.

shootfromthehip said:
Conservatives: “Obama has no respect for the Constitution!”

Conservatives: “Let’s change the Constitution.”

Glad I am not the only one to see.

shootfromthehip said:
Conservatives: “Let’s change the Constitution.”

Where were you when the libs wanted that redundant ERA passed, troll?

I’ll go by Shoot’s example:

Liberals: “The Constitution is a living, breathing, changing mechanism.”

Liberals: “How dare the Republicans want to change the Constitution!”

See… it works both ways!

And now for more screeches of racism in, 3…2…1…

It is time to quit letting the leftest media set the tone of the debate. The 14th Amendment was never meant to let illegals come to have a baby so they could become citizens. Gregory kept asking the question as though it was an extreme position to stop the practice and the misuse of the 14th Amendment.
Boehner should have turned the question on Gregory and asked if he supported people coming here illegally just to have a baby become a citizen? Keep asking until HE answers. No other country in the world allows this stupid practice.
We need judges that would have ruled the practice illegal. It is a false interpetation of the amendment. We should not have to change it but if judges will not follow the intent of the Constitution then we need to make the amendment clear to even people like Gregory and Frances Martel.

gordonbloyershow said:
It is time to quit letting the leftest media set the tone of the debate. The 14th Amendment was never meant to let illegals come to have a baby so they could become citizens. Gregory kept asking the question as though it was an extreme position to stop the practice and the misuse of the 14th Amendment.Boehner should have turned the question on Gregory and asked if he supported people coming here illegally just to have a baby become a citizen? Keep asking until HE answers. No other country in the world allows this stupid practice.We need judges that would have ruled the practice illegal. It is a false interpetation of the amendment. We should not have to change it but if judges will not follow the intent of the Constitution then we need to make the amendment clear to even people like Gregory and Frances Martel.

Gordo, you are a classic case of those folks who attack “activist judges” only when it suits your purposes — that is, when you disagree with the judge.

From Breitbart today:

Flashback: Two Years Ago CBS News Exposed Anchor Baby Problem

http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-two-years-ago-cbs-news-exposed-anchor-baby-problem/

and your’re welcome!

gordonbloyershow said:
It is time to quit letting the leftest media set the tone of the debate. The 14th Amendment was never meant to let illegals come to have a baby so they could become citizens. Gregory kept asking the question as though it was an extreme position to stop the practice and the misuse of the 14th Amendment.
Boehner should have turned the question on Gregory and asked if he supported people coming here illegally just to have a baby become a citizen? Keep asking until HE answers. No other country in the world allows this stupid practice.
We need judges that would have ruled the practice illegal. It is a false interpetation of the amendment. We should not have to change it but if judges will not follow the intent of the Constitution then we need to make the amendment clear to even people like Gregory and Frances Martel.

Uh Gordo – I understand that you are factually challenged and basically full of shit but are you sure the US is the only country in the world in which you become a citizen as a function of being born there? Check into it and get back with us with a youtube video you magnificent bastard you.

PS – Do you know how to use the Google?

Dallas County’s public hospital is ground zero in the growing controversy over babies born to illegal immigrants.

Parkland handled 11,071 births last year to women who could not provide proof of U.S. citizenship – or 74 percent of the total 14,872 births at the hospital. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.
It was the busiest hospital in the state for such births.

In 2004, women in this category accounted for 11,087 births, or 70 percent of the total deliveries.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080810dnmetbabiessider.
2beba5c.html

Beijing – Wang Rong, who is six-months pregnant, is about to leave Beijing for California so she can give birth to her baby in the United States and give the child its first gift – US citizenship.

The special delivery will cost Wang and her husband, both white-collar workers in the capital, 100,000 yuan ($15,000), but they say it is money well spent.

The expenditure will cover all costs, including services before departure, medical care in the US and a three-month stay there, thanks to the help of a Shanghai-based agency that specializes in taking mainland moms to North America.

“Given the quality of educational resources and employment prospects in China, where there is a huge population and harsh competition, I want my baby to win at the starting line.”

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/07/chinese-deliver-babies-in-u-s-for-citizenship/

Some of you people are the most anti-Christian haters I have ever witnessed.

alamo2 said:
Some of you people are the most anti-Christian haters I have ever witnessed.

Which ones, ya gotta tell us which of us you hate.

shootfromthehip said:
Conservatives: “Obama has no respect for the Constitution!”

Conservatives: “Let’s change the Constitution.”

Do you not understand how dumb your comment is? The Constitution is written to be amended, and the fact that conservatives indicate the desire to amend it tells me that they indeed have respect for The Constitution, as opposed to most liberals, who by and large simply ignore it.

1 state out of 50-

60,000 to 65,000 babies automatically gain U.S. citizenship each year when they’re born to the estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants who live in the Lone Star State.

That figure, reported by the Dallas Morning News, comes from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The yearly birth number is equivalent to the population of Austin suburb Cedar Park—about 62,000, according to a 2009 estimate.

http://www.examiner.com/x-37614-Austin-Market-Examiner~y2010m8d8-At-least-60000-babies-born-each-year-to-illegal-immigrants-in-Texas-gain-birthright-citizenship

Alamo, you are a perfect example of a lib changing the subject. What part of illegal don’t you understand?

Ted, I have a question for you. Do you know how to use toilet paper?

gordonbloyershow said:
Ted, I have a question for you. Do you know how to use toilet paper?

Gordo, aka mini-me – Your question is brilliant and in-depth as usual. Give me a day or two to answer. In the meantime, perhaps you can answer my question? I’m guessing you won’t because if you did, you would expose yourself as a buffoon which would run counter to your reputation as a genius.

Now, get to work on that youtube video pronto; we’ll expect it within the hour!!

We should just do what all the other countries do, so they’ll love us. Whoops, there goes birthright citizenship!

Okay I actually think this one I might agree with. I would love to see this repealed or changed, because I agree with the right wing posters, the Document is meant to be changed. Now would we also define what it takes to become a US Citizen instead?

Socrates69 said:
Now would we also define what it takes to become a US Citizen instead?

You have to have a parent who is an American citizen, or be naturalized. That’s the way it works in most other countries.

The 14th Amendment was NEVER intended to convey citizenship to parents doing a “drive-by delivery” of their child in an American hospital; that’s totally absurd.

AND it only was given such meaning by a 1982 5 to 4 Supreme Court case where — guess what — the LIBERALS prevailed!

shootfromthehip said:
Conservatives: “Obama has no respect for the Constitution!”

Conservatives: “Let’s change the Constitution.”

I could have sworn that “amend” means to change, thus the 14th amendment already changed the Constitution. Obviously, it can be amended again.

I think another amendment would be in order, eliminate citizenship for plop and drop babies. The 14th Amendment was never intended to convey citizenship to the plop and drop baby. It was for those already in the USA, so they could not be denied citizenship. Like with the Democrats not wanting blacks to be able to own firearms, I wonder why that was, the 13,14 and 15th Amendments were directed at the evils of the Democrat slave masters.

I wonder what our Obwoma is hiding … Could it be pappy was a Kenyan? So that’s why Obowma thinks Americans are Kenyans too … Native born, both parents are citizens. See the problem?

Do you not understand how dumb your comment is? The Constitution is written to be amended, and the fact that conservatives indicate the desire to amend it tells me that they indeed have respect for The Constitution, as opposed to most liberals, who by and large simply ignore it.

COnservatives pull that constitution like a gun. They are rock solid supporters of…The parts they AGREE with. Other parts of it….theyre not too keen on Ive noticed.

Here is the preamble….Sounds as if it was written by a Liberal.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice the “promote the general welfare” thingy…..Wouldnt HEALTH CARE be a central component of the ‘general welfare?”

Patrick Henry said:
I could have sworn that “amend” means to change, thus the 14th amendment already changed the Constitution. Obviously, it can be amended again.

Yes, and the process for doing that is in the Constitution, so the early suggestion that promoting an amendment means disrespecting the Constitution is a bit silly. The 14th Amendment was the right thing to do at the time. But the problem it was written to solve has long since disappeared, never to return, and the 14th is creating unfortunate, unintended consequences. It has outlived its usefulness.

.Wouldnt HEALTH CARE be a central component of the ‘general welfare?”

Thomas Jefferson would vomit on you.

Icanadd said:
Notice the “promote the general welfare” thingy….

Yes, I also notice that it says “promote”, not “provide”.

“John Boehner said he thought the repeal was “worth considering.”

Repealing John “Boner” would be far more worthy of considering.

ImNotBlue said:

Liberals: “The Constitution is a living, breathing, changing mechanism.”

Liberals: “How dare the Republicans want to change the Constitution!”

As usual, you put words in other people’s mouths – because your OWN words are so inadequate.

Libs/progressives aren’t opposed to changing the Constitution. They are opposed to using it as a campaign tool by even BIGGER “tools” – like Boner.

The Republicants have nothing to show for themselves but incessant, citizens-be-damned “NO” votes in Congress. They have nothing meaningful to offer voters, so they CREATE an issue, wrapping themselves in the Constitution. Wrapping themselves in the flag is no longer sufficient to cover their disgraceful, dishonest conduct.

Unless you’re of native American ancestry, you’re the product of immigrants. Should we deport YOU?

The Repubs empty promise to repeal health care reform if they retake Congress is laughable and typically dishonest. It’s practically impossible for them to gain the necessary two-thirds majority – in BOTH houses – to override a certain presidential veto. Brain-dead termagant Michelle Bachmann promises investigations of “everything” – thereby ensuring a continuation of congressional calcification.

Illegal immigration didn’t begin the moment Obama was sworn in, but some of you hypocrites (gordimblahshow, take a bow) act as if you never HEARD of it before. I didn’t hear many of you guys squalling when your beloved “St. Ronald” legalized MILLIONS of illegals with the stroke of a pen.

Radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out that we don’t have an illegal alien problem as much as we have an illegal EMPLOYER problem. Illegals would have far less incentive to come here if employers weren’t so willing to hire them – itself a violation of law.

Illegal immigration can and should be dealt with under extant laws. It is a multifaceted problem that won’t be resolved by changing the Constitution. Besides, the Tea Partiers claim that the Constitution is unchangeable. (Everybody ditch your guns – the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.)

We can’t increase immigration law enforcement because Boner and Co. will vote against the funding. No, wait . . . THIS time it’s okay to borrow-and-spend . . . well, this and war funding to support our military/industrial complex “welfare queens” . . . and needless tax relief for the wealthy . . . but THAT’S IT!

Icanadd said:
.Wouldnt HEALTH CARE be a central component of the ‘general welfare?”

Uh….no!

Well if they repeal it I hope they make it retroactive. That way they can send Michelle Malkins sorry ass back to the Phillipines.

First off, repealing the 14th is not the only method, but stricter interpretation is possible. This amendment has actually been bastardized by modern courts to include children born of foreign citizens. The 14th was written in the years following the Civil War as a way of ensuring that African-Americans would not be ostracized. Many Southern states threatened to stop recognizing newly freed slaves as citizens and so the 14th would establish them as citizens by birthright.

In the late 1800s immigration was not an issue and the federal immigration laws had not been written yet. This modern interpretation came about in the 1980s when the courts decided to use the 14th as an umbrella to include children born to foreign nationals. This not only strays from the original intent, but some of the writers of the 14th even stipulated at the time this should not include foreign nationals, diplomats, or others travelling into the country.

Criticising conservatives for contemplating an amendment as anti-constitutional is a blind-fury argument. The amendment process is far more democratic than legislating from the court bench against the will of a majority. As pointed out, the 14th is already an Amendment, so why would amending such be anti-constitutional? If you think that is an affront to the constitution try researching the 18th and 21st Amendments.

jrcmi said:
Illegal immigration didn’t begin the moment Obama was sworn in, but some of you hypocrites (gordimblahshow, take a bow) act as if you never HEARD of it before.

I seem to recall Bush and McCain pissing off conservatives regarding this issue. So basically, you’re lying.

jrcmi said:
It is a multifaceted problem that won’t be resolved by changing the Constitution.

You have to start somewhere, and it certainly couldn’t hurt. This is the same logic used to discourage oil drilling in Alaska, you’ve heard it before, “if we open up anwr, it won’t bring that much, and it wouldn’t do anything for five years anyway.” So if we’d have started five years ago, we’d be seeing some oil by now.

jrcmi said:
Unless you’re of native American ancestry, you’re the product of immigrants.

Indians’ ancestors were not native to North America.

jrcmi said:
The Republicants have nothing to show for themselves but incessant, citizens-be-damned “NO” votes in Congress. They have nothing meaningful to offer voters, so they CREATE an issue, wrapping themselves in the Constitution. Wrapping themselves in the flag is no longer sufficient to cover their disgraceful, dishonest conduct. Unless you’re of native American ancestry, you’re the product of immigrants. Should we deport YOU? The Repubs empty promise to repeal health care reform if they retake Congress is laughable and typically dishonest. It’s practically impossible for them to gain the necessary two-thirds majority – in BOTH houses – to override a certain presidential veto. Brain-dead termagant Michelle Bachmann promises investigations of “everything” – thereby ensuring a continuation of congressional calcification. Illegal immigration didn’t begin the moment Obama was sworn in, but some of you hypocrites (gordimblahshow, take a bow) act as if you never HEARD of it before. I didn’t hear many of you guys squalling when your beloved “St. Ronald” legalized MILLIONS of illegals with the stroke of a pen. Radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out that we don’t have an illegal alien problem as much as we have an illegal EMPLOYER problem. Illegals would have far less incentive to come here if employers weren’t so willing to hire them – itself a violation of law. Illegal immigration can and should be dealt with under extant laws. It is a multifaceted problem that won’t be resolved by changing the Constitution. Besides, the Tea Partiers claim that the Constitution is unchangeable. (Everybody ditch your guns – the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.) We can’t increase immigration law enforcement because Boner and Co. will vote against the funding. No, wait . . . THIS time it’s okay to borrow-and-spend . . . well, this and war funding to support our military/industrial complex “welfare queens” . . . and needless tax relief for the wealthy . . . but THAT’S IT!

So much of your screed fails to include rationality. For one, opposition to illegal immigration is not the same as opposing all immigration, like your naitive American example implies. Also, no one is suggesting fixing the 14th is the sole soluution to the multi-faceted immigration problem, but it is a step that could help. I have long said we should go after the employers as a solution, and guess what? They have been doing that in Arizona, and look at the heat they have been receiving. They have done sweeps of companies and found hundreds of illegals employed, and they have been torched over it. (These were not agricultural jobs either. One grocer alone was busted for having hundreds of illegals on the payroll.)

Your claim to no one hearing about immigration before Obama is blindness on your part. Domestic amnesty has been a hot-button topic for years. You probably heard no complaints about it, or Reagan’s immigration moves, because Mediaite has not been around that long.

the real john t said:
Well if they repeal it I hope they make it retroactive. That way they can send Michelle Malkins sorry ass back to the Phillipines.

Malkin’s parents were in the US legally. Not the brightest crayon in the box, are you?

lanquihue said:
So if we’d have started five years ago, we’d be seeing some oil by now.

Yeah, we’d be seeing it going to Japan like most of the oil that comes from Alaska goes. Are you people really that stupid to think oil drilled here stays here? It goes on the international market. Oil companies aren’t in the business to lose money.

Patrick Henry said:
Uh….no!

Uh…WHY? Dont you need affordable available health care too? It has been my experience that those who object most to universal health insurance often have none of their own. I know some of you are still of the IGOTMINEF#$KU mindset of the Reagan era, but trouble is..you DONT have yours. Never have and never will. .

And to the other poster up there somewhere pointing out the difference between the word promote and provide….I didnt know the government was going to “provide” health care, although that might not be a bad idea to take the profit motive out of the health care industry altogether. As it is, however, the government (meaning WE THE PEOPLE) are just are trying to “PROMOTE” the availability of critical health care insurance that is either unavailable to many, or at a cost so prohibative that is unaffordable. In the attempt to lower costs in the long run for all, this requires legislation, mandatory participation, and YES….Taxation. IF you want to use the term PROVIDE, thats ok with me too. In fact I would support an amendment to change the word TO provide if it makes you feel better. Then we will able to discuss the best way to implement a single payer, medicare for all insurance plan, with everybody in and everybody paying. At least we will catch up with the advanced countries of the world that are decades ahead of us in most every respect except the ability to shoot further.

lanquihue said:
Malkin’s parents were in the US legally.

How do you know? Do you know them personally? Or did you just pull that out of your republican place?

gordonbloyershow said:
Boehner should have turned the question on Gregory and asked if he supported people coming here illegally just to have a baby become a citizen? Keep asking until HE answers. No other country in the world allows this stupid practice.

Factually incorrect (link), although I’ll give you a half-point for none of those countries, save the U.S. and Canada, would be high on the list of those who’d want to have “anchor babies”…

gordonbloyershow said:
We need judges that would have ruled the practice illegal. It is a false interpetation of the amendment. We should not have to change it but if judges will not follow the intent of the Constitution then we need to make the amendment clear to even people like Gregory and Frances Martel.

The text says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. It makes no reference to the immigration status of the parents… it just says exactly that. What’s being currently applied follows the exact text of the constitution, in the most non-activist, textualist, conservative way possible.

Let’s be clear — no mere “judges”, as you suggest, can set a new construction of a constitutional amendment. If any lower-court judge were to impliedly add the words “…to a legally-present parent” to the 14th Amendment, that ruling would get reviewed by the Supreme Court justices. Pretty much the most clear-cute case for certiorari ever.

I find the concept of anchor babies offensive myself, but the Supreme Court would just say “if the writers of the amendment meant ‘to legally-present parents’, they ought to have written it down” and then punt the issue to Congress. If jurists thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell that SCOTUS would rule any differently, this review would’ve already happened at some point in the last 100 years…

The 14th Amendment requires no interpretation on citizenship, but a federal government that encourages immigration by non-enforcement of immigration laws and amnesty for those who break them creates a problem.

I suggest amending the 14th Amendment to confer citizenship by birth to all those born in the U.S.A. to U.S. citizens. This is the definition of natural born U.S. citizen in U.S. Const. Art. II Sec. 1, defining eligibility to the Office of President.

the real john t said:
Well if they repeal it I hope they make it retroactive. That way they can send Michelle Malkins sorry ass back to the Phillipines.

She was born in Philadelphia you hack.

timzank said:
She was born in Philadelphia you hack.

Her parents had arrived in the United States earlier that year on an employer-sponsored visa.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin

jrcmi says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Repealing John “Boner” would be far more worthy of considering.

HILARIOUS! You said “Boner!” Brilliant!

Clearly, you’re a political philosopher who’s merits and talents should be celebrated.

Ugh.

As usual, you put words in other people’s mouths – because your OWN words are so inadequate.

Maybe I should have made a joke like calling Boehner, Boner. So clever…

Libs/progressives aren’t opposed to changing the Constitution. They are opposed to using it as a campaign tool by even BIGGER “tools” – like Boner.

Why would campaigning to change the Constitution be a bad thing? If you think the Constitution (or laws, or policies, or anything else) needs to be changed to make this country work better, shouldn’t you campaign on it? Your statement is nonsense.

The Republicants have nothing to show for themselves…

Blah blah blah, irrelevant talking points… blah blah blah.

Unless you’re of native American ancestry, you’re the product of immigrants. Should we deport YOU?

Really? This is going to be your stance? England, France, and Spain colonize the Americas… but now, hundreds of years later, we’re not allowed to make rules to govern ourselves? Puh-lease.

So let me guess… if the person who owned your house before you knocked on your door tomorrow, you’d let them in and say, “Well, I guess you used to live here, so I’ll just do what you say,” then move out and live in the yard. Yeah… that’s what you’d do.

The Repubs empty promise…

Blah blah blah, more irrelevant talking points…

Illegal immigration didn’t begin the moment Obama was sworn in, but some of you hypocrites (gordimblahshow, take a bow) act as if you never HEARD of it before.

Uhhhh… no. Many on the right were very upset that President Bush didn’t take a strong enough stance against illegal immigration.

Of course, what does it really matter? It’s something people want fixed and changed now… so because people didn’t want it then, or weren’t talking about it as strongly, we’re not supposed to talk about it now?

These arguments are yours just keep getting dumber.

I didn’t hear many of you guys squalling when your beloved “St. Ronald” legalized MILLIONS of illegals with the stroke of a pen.

Were you listening? But again… who cares?! So because 20 years ago things were done one way (a way, mind you, most on the right think turned out to be wrong), we’re not allowed to do anything different now?

Dumb.

Radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out that we don’t have an illegal alien problem as much as we have an illegal EMPLOYER problem. Illegals would have far less incentive to come here if employers weren’t so willing to hire them – itself a violation of law.

Terrific! Let’s make that part of our anti-illegal immigration strategy: prevent people from crossing the border, and prevent employers for hiring them. Sounds good to me!

Illegal immigration can and should be dealt with under extant laws. It is a multifaceted problem that won’t be resolved by changing the Constitution.

No… this one element will be dealt with. Why are you so opposed to change?

Besides, the Tea Partiers claim that the Constitution is unchangeable. (Everybody ditch your guns – the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.)

Well, that’s not what they say… but I guess making stuff up is good enough for you.

We can’t increase immigration law enforcement because Boner and Co. will vote against the funding. No, wait . . . THIS time it’s okay to borrow-and-spend . . . well, this and war funding to support our military/industrial complex “welfare queens” . . . and needless tax relief for the wealthy . . . but THAT’S IT!

What in the hell are you talking about? You really need to start thinking and trying to make sense before you write. This method of copy/pasting talking points, many of which are irrelevant, or just argumentative, isn’t working.

the real john t says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Well if they repeal it I hope they make it retroactive. That way they can send Michelle Malkins sorry ass back to the Phillipines.

John T, and the sympathetic, “intellectual” left. If you don’t agree with me, you should get kicked out of the country. If you’re a minority, and not a Democrat, racism is permitted and encourage.

Once again, one of the far left haters exposes the hate and racism of the far left better than the rest of us could.

the real john t says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:28 pm

How do you know? Do you know them personally? Or did you just pull that out of your republican place?

Better question! How do YOU know they weren’t here legally? Do you know them personally? Or did you… well, you see where this is going.

jrcmi said:
Radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out that we don’t have an illegal alien problem as much as we have an illegal EMPLOYER problem. Illegals would have far less incentive to come here if employers weren’t so willing to hire them – itself a violation of law.

Oh great- let’s have radio hosts decide what can be done with the Constitution.

ImNotBlue said:
John T, and the sympathetic, “intellectual” left. If you don’t agree with me, you should get kicked out of the country. If you’re a minority, and not a Democrat, racism is permitted and encourage.
Once again, one of the far left haters exposes the hate and racism of the far left better than the rest of us could.

Well look at that. Old Blue Boy throwing around the word racist. Wait a minute, accorrding to the RW idiots it’s the left that keeps throwing that word around. I guess they’re wrong AGAIN.

John Boehner is an idiot ..he is the reason i stopped all donations to any Republican Fund Raiser’s. This idiot has ruined the Republican Party …He is old school .. his ideals reflect 1958..He needs to let a younger more sober leader take his spot ..One who can lead us somewhere..other then in his NO to everything .. which will bite “US” in the ass come November …Kick him out and let someone like Scot Brown …he wont be an embarrassment to our party ….. and shut that hillbilly Palin up to …she isn’t even worthy of the republican party !Its idiots like her who will cause us to lose …..everyman i have spoken to and asked them about her all say the same thing “everyman s loud mouthed Xwife.

the real john t says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Well look at that. Old Blue Boy throwing around the word racist. Wait a minute, accorrding to the RW idiots it’s the left that keeps throwing that word around. I guess they’re wrong AGAIN.

Here’s the difference, John, ol’ buddy… when I call you a racist, I use your words, unedited, to prove it. When you and the angry left attacks someone for being racist, it’s because they’ve disagreed with someone on the left, or they don’t agree politically with your ideas. See… there’s a difference. One is based on facts and evidence, the other is based on “Ackerman’s Law.”

TCnDC says:
August 9, 2010 at 12:11 am

John Boehner is an idiot ..he is the reason i stopped all donations to any Republican Fund Raiser’s.

Yeah… that was the reason you stopped your donations.

OR, that you clearly don’t agree with the Republican platform… which is fine… but don’t bother claiming you’re a “Republican.” You’re not.

ImNotBlue said:
When you and the angry left attacks someone for being racist, it’s because they’ve disagreed with someone on the left, or they don’t agree politically with your ideas.

Why don’t you prove that Blue Boy. Or did you just pull that out of your republican place?

ImNotBlue said:
OR, that you clearly don’t agree with the Republican platform… which is fine… but don’t bother claiming you’re a “Republican.” You’re not.

Why don’t you call him a racist to Blue Boy. OH! That’s right, there’s no black republican members in the US Congress. Now, you want to keep talking about racists Blue Boy?

“…AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” – NO NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. ILLEGAL BIRTHS DO NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA.

WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS SAYING THIS?

****E-mail the A.C.L.J. (aclj.org) – They are preparing a legal challenge to interpret the law correctly so there’s no need for a Constitutional Ammendment.***

the real john t says:
August 9, 2010 at 1:31 am

Why don’t you prove that Blue Boy. Or did you just pull that out of your republican place?

Prove it? I believe I said that your post proved it.

I swear, sometimes I don’t think you’re paying attention at all.

the real john t says:
August 9, 2010 at 1:40 am

Why don’t you call him a racist to Blue Boy. OH! That’s right, there’s no black republican members in the US Congress. Now, you want to keep talking about racists Blue Boy?

Ugh… this line again? There were Black Republican Congressmen and women, they either retired or lost their elections (if they lost, does that mean the Democrats were racists for voting against them?).

Of course, even the NY Times has acknowledge this is going to be a big year for Black Republicans, as there are so many of them running.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/politics/05blacks.html

” I seem to recall Bush and McCain pissing off conservatives regarding this issue. So basically, you’re lying.”

I seem to recall a recent campaign commercial featuring John McCain walking along the border fence with some gun-happy sheriff – who, coincidentally wasn’t even the local sheriff – talking about getting rid of illegals. If Bush made much noise about illegals, the corporations that own the media – and do much of the hiring – made scant effort to publicize it.

You call me a liar without possibly knowing what I heard, if anything, from either of these jokers. Basically, you’re full of it.

” You have to start somewhere, and it certainly couldn’t hurt. This is the same logic used to discourage oil drilling in Alaska, you’ve heard it before, “if we open up anwr, it won’t bring that much, and it wouldn’t do anything for five years anyway.” So if we’d have started five years ago, we’d be seeing some oil by now.”

And if “St Ronald” hadn’t killed Carter’s solar energy initiative – no doubt to please his Big Oil pals – one-quarter or more of our power would be generated safely and domestically, rather than enriching Saudi princes – Osama bin Laden’s relatives.

The Germans are doing this NOW, only about a decade after starting a solar program.

” Indians’ ancestors were not native to North America.”

They got here first. Tough break, pal.

“Your claim to no one hearing about immigration before Obama is blindness on your part.”

I very clearly saw St. Ronald legalize millions of illegals – with hardly a peep from the right. See your optometrist.

ImNotTrue: When “Boner” stops mispronouncing the name of the “Democrat[ic] Party,” I’ll do as much for him.

“‘The Republicants have nothing to show for themselves…’

Blah blah blah, irrelevant talking points… blah blah blah.”

Name something they did that benefited average Americans. We’ll wait. A lot.

“Why would campaigning to change the Constitution be a bad thing?”

It isn’t – if done for honest reasons, not as a campaign tool used by a morally-bankrupt party in trouble.

“‘The Republicants have nothing to show for themselves’

Blah blah blah, irrelevant talking points… blah blah blah.”

This was your opportunity to enlighten us on the many blessings bestowed on us by the benevolent Bush/Cheney administration. But you didn’t . . . because you COULDN’T.

“‘Unless you’re of native American ancestry, you’re the product of immigrants. Should we deport YOU?’

“Really? This is going to be your stance? England, France, and Spain colonize the Americas… but now, hundreds of years later, we’re not allowed to make rules to govern ourselves? Puh-lease.”

Apparently, recognizing sarcasm isn’t in your “mental toolbox.” It’s probably rusted shut.

Europe largely “colonized” North America by mass-murdering the people who were already here. I wouldn’t boast about it.

You once again put words in another’s mouth by implying a sentiment that was neither stated nor implied. Don’t you get tired of being slimy?

“So let me guess… if the person who owned your house before you knocked on your door tomorrow, you’d let them in and say, “Well, I guess you used to live here, so I’ll just do what you say,” then move out and live in the yard. Yeah… that’s what you’d do.”

You guess wrong. As usual. This was a particularly idiotic assertion on your part, as well as yet another attempt to impute a motive when none existed. Don’t you get tired of being slimy . . . AND idiotic . . . AND wrong?

“‘The Repubs empty promise…’

“Blah blah blah, more irrelevant talking points… ”

Health care is not “irrelevant” to Americans in desperate need of same. Financial reform is not “irrelevant” to them, either. As with gordonblowhard, you cannot “refudiate” the logic of a statement so you try – with increasing impotence – to attack it.

“‘Illegal immigration didn’t begin the moment Obama was sworn in, but some of you hypocrites (gordimblahshow, take a bow) act as if you never HEARD of it before.’

“Uhhhh… no. Many on the right were very upset that President Bush didn’t take a strong enough stance against illegal immigration.”

Yeah, who can forget the image of the right-wing goose-steppers marching on the White House. Sheesh.

They were all too fat-n-happy when Dumbya and Darth were running up a colossal national debt and getting American soldiers needlessly killed to care all that much.

“Of course, what does it really matter? It’s something people want fixed and changed now… so because people didn’t want it then, or weren’t talking about it as strongly, we’re not supposed to talk about it now?”

Who can stop you? The cons own the corporations that own the media.

So now you’re saying the righties WEREN’T talking about immigration during the Bush administration? You just said they WERE!

(Sorry, I used your own form of “perverted attribution” against you. Sucks, don’t it?)

“These arguments are yours just keep getting dumber.”

Read that last line carefully, folks. I swear I repeated it verbatim.

“‘I didn’t hear many of you guys squalling when your beloved “St. Ronald” legalized MILLIONS of illegals with the stroke of a pen.’

“Were you listening? But again… who cares?! So because 20 years ago things were done one way (a way, mind you, most on the right think turned out to be wrong), we’re not allowed to do anything different now?”

We need to utilize existing laws better. Radio host Thom Hartmann notes that many “illegal” aliens are people who received legal work or student visas and didn’t go home. Tightening rules on who can receive such visas would be just one idea – and exactly one MORE idea than I’ve heard from the right, short of the Minuteman approach of picking them off at the border with Howitzers.

“Dumb.”

Like I said; I wouldn’t boast.

“‘Illegal immigration can and should be dealt with under extant laws. It is a multifaceted problem that won’t be resolved by changing the Constitution.’

“No… this one element will be dealt with. Why are you so opposed to change?”

Why are you so quick to change the Constitution? The Tea Partiers say it’s immutable and inviolate – and I’d hate to p-o the TPers.

The blue-noses who pushed through Prohibition learned the hard way: you don’t change the Constitution unless there’s no other recourse. We have many recourses for immigration.

“‘Besides, the Tea Partiers claim that the Constitution is unchangeable. (Everybody ditch your guns – the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.)’

“Well, that’s not what they say… but I guess making stuff up is good enough for you.”

I’ll leave the self-delusion to you. I just go by what I hear and read. I’m funny that way. The TPers often complain about liberties being taken with the Constitution – unless it’s done by conservative Supreme Court justices, of course.

“‘We can’t increase immigration law enforcement because Boner and Co. will vote against the funding. No, wait . . . THIS time it’s okay to borrow-and-spend . . . well, this and war funding to support our military/industrial complex “welfare queens” . . . and needless tax relief for the wealthy . . . but THAT’S IT!’

“What in the hell are you talking about? You really need to start thinking and trying to make sense before you write. This method of copy/pasting talking points, many of which are irrelevant, or just argumentative, isn’t working.”

Did you have a humorectomy, or something? I was exaggerating – sort of – to make a point about Repub inaction/indifference toward their duties and their constituents.

Where did I “copy/paste” anything from? Post your proof. We’ll wait . . . a VERY long time. I’ve found several examples of extensive use of copy-n-paste right-wing talking points on this site. But that doesn’t bother you hypocritical types, does it?

I paraphrased a talk-show host who has proven himself accurate and honest. You use that as a cheep – and false – excuse to yet AGAIN misstate someone else’s words.

My point is that your Republicant pals in Congress won’t do anything for anyone but themselves and their fat-cat donors. If that includes conveniently fanning anger at illegals – as a smokescreen to cover their own legislative failures and indifference toward Americans’ real needs – that’s what they’ll do.

notsofast said:
Oh great- let’s have radio hosts decide what can be done with the Constitution.

It may have escaped your hawk-eyed attention that Hartmann merely “noted” the situation. He does not claim to be “The Decider.”

I guess it’s okay when Dimbaugh tells “dizzo-heads” like you to try to screw up the Democratic primaries?

Why don’t you go satisfy your colorectal cravings and let the big people talk?

jrcmi says:
August 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm

I seem to recall a recent campaign commercial featuring John McCain walking along the border fence with some gun-happy sheriff

Why do you describe him as “gun-happy.” What is your evidence?

– who, coincidentally wasn’t even the local sheriff

You realize that more than just the border towns are effected by illegal immigrant criminals and drug smugglers, right?

– talking about getting rid of illegals. If Bush made much noise about illegals, the corporations that own the media – and do much of the hiring – made scant effort to publicize it.

I think that was the point… Bush (and to a degree McCain) didn’t make a big deal about illegal immigration. And the right wasn’t happy about that, just as they’re not happy about Obama doing the same.

You call me a liar without possibly knowing what I heard, if anything, from either of these jokers. Basically, you’re full of it.

Your ignorance is not an excuse. But to clarify the previous comment: EITHER you’re a liar, or woefully uninformed.

And if “St Ronald” hadn’t killed Carter’s solar energy initiative – no doubt to please his Big Oil pals – one-quarter or more of our power would be generated safely and domestically, rather than enriching Saudi princes – Osama bin Laden’s relatives.

And the evidence that solar power (or any kind of non-oil power) can sustain that many people is… none. Of course, this is irrelevant and simply a distraction… and an obvious one at that.

” Indians’ ancestors were not native to North America.”

They got here first. Tough break, pal.

So?

I very clearly saw St. Ronald legalize millions of illegals – with hardly a peep from the right. See your optometrist.

And as I said, many people recognize that as a mistake. What’s your point? Because a mistake was made then, we have to keep making it?

ImNotTrue: When “Boner” stops mispronouncing the name of the “Democrat[ic] Party,” I’ll do as much for him.

Ah… so you believe that you should insult his name, because he (may or may not have) “insulted” Democrats. The old, “I’m going to justify my bad behavior, with his bad behavior.” Good plan. But, I wonder if mommy will let you get away with just a juvenile attitude.

Name something they did that benefited average Americans. We’ll wait. A lot.

You’re right… they’re all terrible terrible people. And only think about the rich. Unless, those nasty rich people are Democrats, in which case (as has been show on other threads), the people complaining are only poor Republicans who are jealous. How, according to the left, the right can be so concerned about rich people, yet so poor at the same time is a mystery.

You’ve got a lot of hate in your life. What a shame.

It isn’t – if done for honest reasons, not as a campaign tool used by a morally-bankrupt party in trouble.

A party in trouble… which leads in most polls. That must be a new definition of “trouble.”

And if they’re honestly thinking about trying to do this, why would it be a problem. You’re not making any sense. You think it’s okay for them to do, but only if they mean it… but have no evidence that they don’t mean it. What the heck are you complaining about?!

This was your opportunity to enlighten us on the many blessings bestowed on us by the benevolent Bush/Cheney administration. But you didn’t . . . because you COULDN’T.

Again, awful people who did nothing to help anyone ever… and probably step on puppies just for fun.

Yeesh.

Apparently, recognizing sarcasm isn’t in your “mental toolbox.” It’s probably rusted shut.

Ah, the “sarcasm” line. Oh well… as we all know, claiming “sarcasm” is the first thing folks do when they’ve been caught saying something goofy. Oh well. Predictable.

Europe largely “colonized” North America by mass-murdering the people who were already here. I wouldn’t boast about it.

Who’s boasting? But what would you like to happen now?

You once again put words in another’s mouth by implying a sentiment that was neither stated nor implied. Don’t you get tired of being slimy?

Well… maybe if you explained yourself a little more clearly, we wouldn’t have to keep playing the “figure out what I’m talking about game.” I tend to think people speak with a purpose… you seem intent on proving that wrong. I try to find you purpose, and you respond with, “I didn’t say that… I didn’t have a purpose.”

Honestly, I’m not sure typing simply for the sake of typing is a good thing, Jr. You should work on that.

You guess wrong. As usual. This was a particularly idiotic assertion on your part, as well as yet another attempt to impute a motive when none existed. Don’t you get tired of being slimy . . . AND idiotic . . . AND wrong?

So… you wouldn’t give them back their house… and yet, you’ll make statements about the early colonization of America. And for what reason, again?

Health care is not “irrelevant” to Americans in desperate need of same. Financial reform is not “irrelevant” to them, either. As with gordonblowhard, you cannot “refudiate” the logic of a statement so you try – with increasing impotence – to attack it.

You are aware that every study shows the Healthcare program won’t actually help a significant portion of those who “need” it. And financial reform hasn’t done anything to help the system improve, as it excluded two of the biggest cause of the current crisis, Fannie and Freddy. Sorry… but slogans and titles don’t actually improve situations… you need to explore the action text to understand.

Yeah, who can forget the image of the right-wing goose-steppers marching on the White House. Sheesh.

Oh, goodie! A Nazi reference. Are you really that far down in the argument department that you pull that out? Shame.

Anyway… there were marches… but again, what does it matter? Because people weren’t upset enough then, they’re not allowed to be upset now?

And here I’d think that the folks who complained the Bush was “spying on everyone” and “taking away civil liberties,” who suddenly stopped complaining even though THEIR GUY (Obama) decided to re-issue the exact same thing… I’d think those folks wouldn’t mind people who “change their mind,” or people who are “angry now, but not angry then” and visa versa. How surprising that they don’t remember that.

They were all too fat-n-happy when Dumbya and Darth were running up a colossal national debt and getting American soldiers needlessly killed to care all that much.

You mean in the wars that Obama hasn’t really ended yet… or in the prison that Obama hasn’t quite closed yet? But please, tell me more about how bad the colossal debt was, and how good it is now.

Yeesh.

Who can stop you? The cons own the corporations that own the media.

Riiiiiiight. Everyone is conspiring against you. The walls are closing in!

Nevermind that EVERY SINGLE STUDY shows a vast majority of the news networks are run and staff by Democrats and Liberals. Nevermind that you have no evidence to back up your claim. And nevermind the sheer insanity it must take to believe such nonsense… just put the foil hat back on, and watch out for the helicopters.

So now you’re saying the righties WEREN’T talking about immigration during the Bush administration? You just said they WERE!

(Sorry, I used your own form of “perverted attribution” against you. Sucks, don’t it?)

So you think I make things up… so you’ve gone and made something up to get even? Again… how does that make you better or more correct?

Anyway… the difference is I clearly stated my point, asked you a question, and you’re just dodging the response. You can’t or don’t want to answer. I get it… we can move on.

Read that last line carefully, folks. I swear I repeated it verbatim.

Shall I highlight your typos? Nahh… not enough space.

Why are you so quick to change the Constitution? The Tea Partiers say it’s immutable and inviolate – and I’d hate to p-o the TPers.

Who’s so quick? Boener said it was worth discussing. Apparently, that’s too quick for you?

The blue-noses who pushed through Prohibition learned the hard way: you don’t change the Constitution unless there’s no other recourse. We have many recourses for immigration.

A valid opinion… which is something I’m pretty sure would come up in this whole “discussion” part.

I’ll leave the self-delusion to you. I just go by what I hear and read. I’m funny that way. The TPers often complain about liberties being taken with the Constitution – unless it’s done by conservative Supreme Court justices, of course.

Perhaps you shouldn’t listen to or read those sources anymore. Perhaps you should find something more honest.

Of course, since you also believe the media is all owned and controlled by the right (as you said before), I don’t know why you’d trust anything you see or hear.

Did you have a humorectomy, or something? I was exaggerating – sort of – to make a point about Repub inaction/indifference toward their duties and their constituents.

Ugh… again you get caught, and again you play the “humor” card. Sad.

Where did I “copy/paste” anything from? Post your proof. We’ll wait . . . a VERY long time. I’ve found several examples of extensive use of copy-n-paste right-wing talking points on this site. But that doesn’t bother you hypocritical types, does it?

As I believe I said, the arguments you posted which were completely unrelated to the topic at hand were the “copy/pasted” elements. They had nothing to do with anything, but you wanted to include them to fulfill your quotient of hate.

As for “others,” it’s tough to know what you’re talking about when you don’t provide any evidence. But this isn’t the first time we’ve spoken, so I wasn’t actually expecting any support for your claims.

I paraphrased a talk-show host who has proven himself accurate and honest. You use that as a cheep – and false – excuse to yet AGAIN misstate someone else’s words.

You realize there’s a difference between “accurate and honest” and “I agree with him politically,” right?

Hmm… maybe you don’t. Although, again I wonder how such an “accurate and honest” person got through the right-wing media monopoly you like to talk about.

My point is that your Republicant pals in Congress won’t do anything for anyone but themselves and their fat-cat donors. If that includes conveniently fanning anger at illegals – as a smokescreen to cover their own legislative failures and indifference toward Americans’ real needs – that’s what they’ll do.

Wouldn’t it help those “fat-cat” business owners to keep illegals here for their cheap labor? I know, I know, applying what you’ve said to the real world makes me “slimy.” Forgive me for once again shooting holes in your nonsense.
Why don’t you go satisfy your colorectal cravings and let the big people talk?

Big people don’t use schoolyard insults to communicate. I guess that you means you’re gone again, huh?

alamo2 says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm
6  1
Some of you people are the most anti-Christian haters I have ever witnessed.
Out of all the dumb shit I’ve read on this board, the above statement made me sick. No one bashed Christians. You interjected this, most likely because you wanted to say something but had nothing to say. The 14th amendment gives rights to the child, not the parents. If illegals come and have babies here, they should be sent back to their rightful countries with their children. Then if that child wants, after they turn 18 years of age, they could have the choice to come back here. In most cases they wont come here. They will stay in their countries with family and friends. Immagration should also cover hatian ans cuban reffugees that float boats over to america and it is the job of the US Coast guard to catch them before they get on land. Reach the land you are free! Just because we dont like Castro, we should take all his countrymen in who hate him too. No. The 14th amendment was created to give the slaves there right to be American citizens. Why not they were stolen from Africa and forced to come here well over 200 years ago. Leave it alone. The slaves are free citizens. Who else was forced to come here? At gunpoint? Chained and forced to drag other dead would be slaves? If you people were not brought here like this, the 14th amendment does and should not apply to you.