Thread: O'Reilly explains why Paul/Hunter won't be in debate

Oh, hope I didn't offend.

It's just that I have been looking at this for many years. Through the years, we have had congress controlled by one party, congress split, the PResident and congress of the same party and the PResident and congress of different parties, etc., and only the rhetoric is different.

As far as the globalist agenda - illegal immigration, one sided trade deals, outsourcing, UN encrouching on our sovereignty, foreign policy, etc., there has been little slowdown. The agenda has been marching steadily forward for 50 years.

The two parties remind of professional wrestlers. They come out there in their costumes of 'party' and talk the good talk, and pretend to be different. When the work begins, they all have their own choreographed little moves to make and they do it well. Sure, some of them would like to have top billing and they is some infighting - but when it comes down to being good little politicians, they put all that aside.

nntrixie wrote:

These days, I am not sure why someone who favors illegal immigration is called 'liberal' when it has been the so-called conservatives who have been in power and who have overseen the largest number of invaders yet.

I haven't consistently heard that all illegal immigrant advocates are called liberal. However, a look at each of the Democrat presidential candidates position on the issue and the voting sheets on the last three amnesty attempts (including the Dream Act) clearly identifies that the majority of so-called liberal politicians in the U.S. Congress are supporters of amnesty. The situation is reversed on the Republican side of the aisle.

mw Just responding to another post.

Fox is as liberal as the rest of them on illegal immigration

Hence, my response.