Thread: Simply Put

Bush wants amnesty and he also wants to keep the majority.

If the price of amnesty is NOT loss of the majority then amnesty was FREE. (no matter how much shuffling of the puppets the voters do)

Pres. Bush wants amnesty period. A majority means little to him. The Democrats have pretty much done everything he has wanted all along.

To have a Democratically controlled congress would be fine for him, as far as the illegal situation is concerned. Who knows what kind of laws we would get passed with that 'dream team'. Does anyone actually think a Democratically controlled congress with get tough with immigration?

If we get an amnesty - the Democrats and the President will be the majority who vote for it - that's the facts.

I have no love or faith in the Republicans - but the Democrats have been four square behind amnesty - and more. So to say we should give them control as a 'reward' just makes no sense.

The only thing we should do is vote out everyone - everyone - except Tancredo. Unless there are some others who stand up and say 'We don't need new laws - we need to enforce the ones we have.'.

We need to vote in an entirely new group in Washington - anything less is just business as usual.

Changing the majority won't have any effect at all -

The only reason the PResident is listening to the congress is because the Republicans in congress don't want to loose the majority and they might vote against the PResident. He doesn't care one way or the other - it just might be a little tougher with Republicans -

nntrixie,
I think you are missing the point. If amnesty BECOMES law there should be voter pay back against the majority party. The minority party has nothing to lose because they are already in the minority. Do you really think bush wants to work with speaker Pelosi instead of Hastert who he can easily arm twist?

RE:If we get an amnesty - the Democrats and the President will be the majority who vote for it - that's the facts.

Yes and he will use the D to protect his R majority from voter wrath. Can you see the scam?

And let me tell you that there are NO..... as in ZERO republicans in congress who stood up for this issue when it meant something.

If you want to disagree with that statement my question to you would be:Were you or any of your asssociates at the RNC convention in Manhattan in 2004 when this issue was "supposed" to be addressed. If yes you already know what I am talking about.