Thread: Coincidence or Broadway Show? You decide.

The bi-partisan Kennedy/McCain amnesty package has been replace by the Republican Hagel/Martinez substitute. hmmm From a bi-pastisan show to a republican only show. hmmm But why Hagel of Nebraska nd Martinez of Florida? Could it be because these are 2 red states that have democrat senators up for re-election in 2006 or is this just a coincidence??
hmmm

This has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat -

How could it? They both want the same thing.

This has to do with blindsiding the American people into thinking one side or the other MIGHT make a difference.

Look at their history - these are critters who definitely DO NOT change their spots.

This wouldn't even make it to Broadway - it is too obvious.

They are going to do what it takes to get a amnesty passed - all of them.

nntrixie,
You are right that they both want the same thing. More power to screw the American people. However if you think that there is no difference being in the minority party or the majority party in the senate and especially the House then call a bunch of congressman and senators and ask them if there is any difference and which do they prefer. Being in the minority or the majority. Let us know what they say.

The majority party right now is the republican party. Therefore they have something to lose. The majority. Amnesty can NOT pass without the support of the majority party(even though they will use the dems as patsies) therefore they are the party to hold accountable. The price of amnesty must be loss of the majority for the republican party. Are they willing to lose congress over one issue?

Of course, the Republicans like to be in the majority - but Republicans in the majority is fairly recent history.

I don't understand about loosing congress over one issue.

Do you honestly think if the Democrats were in the majority this wouldn't have already been passed???? We wouldn't be debating it now - it would be a one deal.


I don't want to reward any of them except with loss of their seats -

With 99% of the Democrats voting for, screaming for, fighting for, this how in the world can you think their being in the majority will help.

It isn't a partisan thing - it is an a matter of the America people vs. the congress.

Unless and until we stop thinking in terms of parties as being anything but totally vile, we are going nowhere. That's why we are in the mess we are today.

When both parties want the same thing - and that is true more often than not - it is just charades, rhetoric, talk for the benefit of the 'riff-raff' (that's us).

nntrixie,
I am not defending D or R. But I am defending the facts. Clinton's first 2 years in office he had a D senate and house and no amnesty was passed. Of course there were not as many illegal aliens then as there are now. He wanted to pass amnesty his last term in office but the R congress would not pass it. Clinton even vetoed must pass appropriations bills and would not sign them unless amnesty was attached and the R congress stood firm against amnesty and funded the government with CR's. (continuing resolutions)

Partisanship may not be important to us but it is to them. Right now the R has the majority and if they pass amnesty I will vote against EVERY R on the ballot on election day!! Everyone has to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be a free ****. I have decided NO I will not be a free ^^^^ and if amnesty passes I will vote against every R on the ballot on election day 2006. Call it what you will but it is MY vote.

It is like this:
Q: who do you vote for when BOTH SIDES are for amnesty?

A:You vote against the party in the majority because they are responsible since they could easily stop amnesty.

In other words the price of amnesty should be loss of the majority. Now when the majority realizes that there is a price to be paid for amnesty they have to decide whether one issue is worth losing the majority over.


Put aside your checkers for awhile and start playing chess. They are.
And we can win if we stop being a free ****.(I never was, I am not squeamish about voting payback even if the other candidate is worse) If the Republicans lose the House over amnesty there is a possibility that Bush will get impeached. And in a closely divided electorate every vote counts.

The republican majority party is responsible even if they use a patsy coalition of democrats, RINO's and safe seat republicans to pass amnesty. Voting against individuals who supported amnesty is not a strong enough move and in fact you may even be helping the R party that screwed you. You must vote against the majority party at large with the objective of costing them the majority.

If amnesty becomes law vote against every R on the ballot. That means voting 3rd party or doing a write-in or if you really feel betrayed vote D.

Do you really think partisanship is important to them?

So I should reward 49% of the people who are selling out this country because the other 51% who are doing it wear another label????.

Don't reward any of them - put them all out. Then do it again. That way if they have a 'majority', it won't be for long.

These people have no allegiance to anything or anyone. They only pretend to be one party or the other because it is how they get elected - not how they believe.



They play a game with us - they can't tell us their ultimate goal is the same - the globalization of America. They have to pretend they disagree - except , good gosh, on this issue they are showing their true colors.

AS for Clinton, we had just had an amnesty under Reagan, it was far too soon - so no one wanted one then - they needed more and more here. Under Clinton, they flooded on in - then this President can come in and begin his speeches for amnesty. He intended to get it done immediately, but the mood after 9/11 would not have allowed it. That would be the only reason the Republicans held out - it wasn't time yet.

It's a game.

Now we are never going to agree on this - and it truly scares me that anyone thinks one party or the other will make any difference -

A whole new congress will make a difference - then another - then a third party - that will make a difference.

You know the funny thing about this President's reign has been the total ineffectiveness of the so-called 'opposing party'. They have voted right down the line with this President on everything that really matters to his adminstration. Then we hear, 'We were duped.", "We are not in the majority.", ' We didn't really want to do it, but' = balderdash.

Do you not think if the people who wear the 'd' label got together against this and used their power, this couldn't be voted down. Of course, it can.




Any lawmaker has the ability to get on talk shows, write op-ed pieces, have town hall meetings, contact his constituents (not just voters and not just contributors) - heck, they can stand on the street corners.

To hear some lawmaker suggest he/she was powerless is sickening -

nntrixie,
RE:and it truly scares me that anyone thinks one party or the other will make any difference -


Let me say this for the last time. IT IS NOT ABOUT PARTY.
IT IS ABOUT "PRICE"
The price of amnesty should be the majority party loses the majority. If there is no price to be paid then you are telling them that you can screw us again and again and again. I don't care if the other party is the same or worse. Where there is a problem there is a soution UNLESS you surrender by SUPPORTING the problem by showing them there is no price to be paid.

Either you understand that or you don't. It can't be made any simpler.

But you would be rewarding the Democrats - or the minority for their part (which is not only considerable - but much longer running) in this travesty.

The only way to punish anyone is to take away their seat in congress -

base the vote on voting out the encumbent.

The Democrats have had plenty of time to see that our laws are enforced - in the minority or majority.

The minority is not helpless - it is not.

Heck, if the Democrats just voted with the Republicans who say they are against it - it would not pass.

It couldn't be simpler - get all of them out - don't give power to any of them.

So, no, I don't see it. I can undertand that you do - and can respect that you have an opinion different from mine.