Thread: Do Facts Matter?

Originally Posted by April

Originally Posted by nntrixie

We are lost if we continue to think of this in terms of 'the democrats are worse than the republicans'.

How can the Republicans counterattack when they are partners in it?

Watch this again -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLUbb2DUYGk

How many homes does he want to be financed for low income minorities - speaking specifically to FM & FM?

Both candidates allowed and promoted this - both candidates wanted the bail out - both candidates want amnesty.

That's the facts that matter.

Absolutely true!

I have to agree with you on this. The NH Republican Senators voted yes for the bail out; the Democrat House Rep voted No.

Sununu is running for re-election and I let him know I am not voting for him as a result of his cowardly vote. Just to piss him off I am voting for the Democrat that said she was against the bill.

AmericanPatriot wrote:

Sununu is running for re-election and I let him know I am not voting for him as a result of his cowardly vote. Just to piss him off I am voting for the Democrat that said she was against the bill.

Sununu has an A- career and A- recent report card grade with NumbersUSA. Actually Sununu has a better voting record against illegal immigration than any U.S. Congressman from N.H. Additionally, he has voted against previous amnesty attempts. The other Senator from N.H. has a C+ grade and one U.S. House member has a C- and the other a D (both Democrats).

The Democrat running against him is Jeanne Shaheen. Do you even know her position on immigration and border security? Is she better than Sen. Sununu on the issue?

This is not directed at you specifically but I'm quickly becoming very concerned with the number of folks that seem to be forgetting what is supposed to be our number one priority. This is one of the reasons I was against ALIPAC becoming involved in the bail out.

Oh, Sen. Sununu also has ALIPAC's endorsement for reelection.

IF they can be bought off and ignore us about the bailout, they can be bought off to ignore us about illegal immigration or any issue. This is their trial run to see if walking over us while we scream no, will work and they can get away with it.

IF they can be bought off and ignore us about the bailout, they can be bought off to ignore us about illegal immigration or any issue. This is their trial run to see if walking over us while we scream no, will work and they can get away with it.

Exactly.

My very own John Cronyn voted against amnesty last time - then came out of the vote, not wanting interior enforcement, but suddenly we just had to have that fence - nothing else would work - just the fence.

He is facing poetic justice this time, his opponent is hispanic.

Everyday illegals stay, they are closer to amnesty, they are having babies, they are getting more and more power.

That is why I believe, most of them are working against us. They are playing for time.

nntrixie wrote:


We are lost if we continue to think of this in terms of 'the democrats are worse than the republicans'.


IMO, they are, especially on the immigration and border security issue.

Quote:
We simply vote out everyone now in office for about the next 3 elections cycles and continue doing it until we get a group that will listen to us.


It's amazing how you always seem to lump everyone together in your rants. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water! We happen to have some great allies in the U.S. Congress.

Sorry, if I rant. I don't intend it that way.

We simply don't agree on the goodness of Republicans. I don't see how anyone can say they are better on immigration than the democrats. Yes, some are - but very few have been consistent on it.

This administration, called a Republican one, has been the most blatantly, openly pro illegal of any in my lifetime. He has called us bigots, he has touted their work ethics, their family values, doing the work we won't do, etc.

We've had a Republican administration for almost 8 years now. They have had more power, than any other administration, by virtue of the terrorism threat, to identify and send home illegals and they have done just the opposite. They talk about defending this country, while filling it with foreigners.

The most important thing, is after 9/11, for quite some time, they would have had the people behind them. If they had done what should have been done, for security reasons, if no other, and began enforcing our laws, the carrying on of the pro illegal organizations would have fallen on deaf ears.

There are a very few in congress who are our allies and I usually do preface my 'rants' with the fact that they should be retained.

That should be, in my opinion, be limited to those who have consistently been against it, consistently spoken out against it. That would be very few.

The fact is, many of them have been up there for some time. They have had plenty of time to actually do something. They have power, they have visibility, they have access to the media and with miniscule exceptions, none of them have used it.

Just me, but the idea of rep/dem and thinking along party lines is exactly why they have been able to get us to vote for them no matter what they do - or don't do.

I just think it would be better to talk in terms of the actual people, rather than party.

Originally Posted by April

IF they can be bought off and ignore us about the bailout, they can be bought off to ignore us about illegal immigration or any issue. This is their trial run to see if walking over us while we scream no, will work and they can get away with it.

LOUD APPLAUSE AND A STANDING OVATION!

Originally Posted by nntrixie

IF they can be bought off and ignore us about the bailout, they can be bought off to ignore us about illegal immigration or any issue. This is their trial run to see if walking over us while we scream no, will work and they can get away with it.

Exactly.

My very own John Cronyn voted against amnesty last time - then came out of the vote, not wanting interior enforcement, but suddenly we just had to have that fence - nothing else would work - just the fence.

He is facing poetic justice this time, his opponent is hispanic.

Everyday illegals stay, they are closer to amnesty, they are having babies, they are getting more and more power.

That is why I believe, most of them are working against us. They are playing for time.


[quote:2qviewrz]

nntrixie wrote:


We are lost if we continue to think of this in terms of 'the democrats are worse than the republicans'.


IMO, they are, especially on the immigration and border security issue.

Quote:
We simply vote out everyone now in office for about the next 3 elections cycles and continue doing it until we get a group that will listen to us.


It's amazing how you always seem to lump everyone together in your rants. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water! We happen to have some great allies in the U.S. Congress.

Sorry, if I rant. I don't intend it that way.

We simply don't agree on the goodness of Republicans. I don't see how anyone can say they are better on immigration than the democrats. Yes, some are - but very few have been consistent on it.

This administration, called a Republican one, has been the most blatantly, openly pro illegal of any in my lifetime. He has called us bigots, he has touted their work ethics, their family values, doing the work we won't do, etc.

We've had a Republican administration for almost 8 years now. They have had more power, than any other administration, by virtue of the terrorism threat, to identify and send home illegals and they have done just the opposite. They talk about defending this country, while filling it with foreigners.

The most important thing, is after 9/11, for quite some time, they would have had the people behind them. If they had done what should have been done, for security reasons, if no other, and began enforcing our laws, the carrying on of the pro illegal organizations would have fallen on deaf ears.

There are a very few in congress who are our allies and I usually do preface my 'rants' with the fact that they should be retained.

That should be, in my opinion, be limited to those who have consistently been against it, consistently spoken out against it. That would be very few.

The fact is, many of them have been up there for some time. They have had plenty of time to actually do something. They have power, they have visibility, they have access to the media and with miniscule exceptions, none of them have used it.

Just me, but the idea of rep/dem and thinking along party lines is exactly why they have been able to get us to vote for them no matter what they do - or don't do.

I just think it would be better to talk in terms of the actual people, rather than party.[/quote:2qviewrz]

Face the facts, we basically have a one party system. The two have become so intertwined we have the option of voting for the Republicrats or the Demicans.

cayla

That's what I have been trying to say.

I do confess I cringe when someone speaks in terms of party, rather than people.

There are few things I believe as totally as I believe it is the belief and the commitment to party politics that has caused our problems.

My apologies for ranting ---------

Originally Posted by nntrixie

cayla

That's what I have been trying to say.

I do confess I cringe when someone speaks in terms of party, rather than people.

There are few things I believe as totally as I believe it is the belief and the commitment to party politics that has caused our problems.

My apologies for ranting ---------

You and I are not alone when we find the party system nauseating. George Washington in his farewell address had the following to say about parties:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

To read more, click here:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyameric ... /text.html

Originally Posted by nntrixie

cayla

That's what I have been trying to say.

I do confess I cringe when someone speaks in terms of party, rather than people.

There are few things I believe as totally as I believe it is the belief and the commitment to party politics that has caused our problems.

My apologies for ranting ---------

Those that have been brainwashed to vote party lines need to wake up before it is too late.

cayla

Thanks, that's very good.

I had never read that.