Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Actually a moderate third party is not a bad idea. If we had three political parties and none of the three parties could form a majority to block and/or force through legislation slanted to the extreme left or right, congress would be forced to form coalitions to pass legislation - in effect nullifying a single party's ability to block legislation as Republicans and Democrats have both been doing since the practice was begun during the Clinton presidency.

Also, a simple change, such as requiring every issue to stand on its own merits, would eliminate a lot of the influence peddling. What I would propose is that no attachments, amendments, or riders could be added to a bill to "buy" votes. Every congressman's vote would be made public.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I agree it is very complicated but what you provided is more of a specific symptom. I am meaning more along the lines of the illness:
Welcome to the New Corporatism | The American Spectator

Sorry, maybe I am having a dense moment (case of the Monday's).

I thought Bob's point was that if cash was deployed, the economy would be better off. I can understand your point that companies will protect their interests, which could stymie investment. But, I am not sure where the two come together.

I suppose you could argue that the since these companies dominate their industry, there is little incentive for them to invest domestically. Likewise, they have such a huge advantage, that the little guy never develops and no one wants to invest in these little companies.

Again, I am not sure where these stories intertwine. For example, we could say that Comcast has a huge advantage and is lobbying hard for policies that help protect their causes. I will not argue with you on that. This impacts us as consumers. But, Comcast can't do it all on their own. I am sure they have a staffing firm they use as well as other countless support services. More over, I know they do not make their cable boxes. In fact, attached below is an article describing them investing in the company that does.

The point being, that for every top dog we associate with the ideas you articulated, there is a vast supply chain that feeds them. This supply chain is where small business thrives. So the issue plaguing the cash hoard (at least, from my prospective) is much less about competition at the top of the chain so much as it is that these mega companies typically aren't investing their cash in America, which I discussed before.

Comcast sinks $150M into Motorola cable box maker Arris | VentureBeat | Business | by Tom Cheredar
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Sorry, maybe I am having a dense moment (case of the Monday's).

I thought Bob's point was that if cash was deployed, the economy would be better off. I can understand your point that companies will protect their interests, which could stymie investment. But, I am not sure where the two come together.

I suppose you could argue that the since these companies dominate their industry, there is little incentive for them to invest domestically. Likewise, they have such a huge advantage, that the little guy never develops and no one wants to invest in these little companies.

Again, I am not sure where these stories intertwine. For example, we could say that Comcast has a huge advantage and is lobbying hard for policies that help protect their causes. I will not argue with you on that. This impacts us as consumers. But, Comcast can't do it all on their own. I am sure they have a staffing firm they use as well as other countless support services. More over, I know they do not make their cable boxes. In fact, attached below is an article describing them investing in the company that does.

The point being, that for every top dog we associate with the ideas you articulated, there is a vast supply chain that feeds them. This supply chain is where small business thrives. So the issue plaguing the cash hoard (at least, from my prospective) is much less about competition at the top of the chain so much as it is that these mega companies typically aren't investing their cash in America, which I discussed before.

Comcast sinks $150M into Motorola cable box maker Arris | VentureBeat | Business | by Tom Cheredar
No you are right. I was expanding on what he posted in a broader sense and as an example of the parallel economy Phelps wrote about. I honestly don't know what these companies would do if they brought their cash back. I think if they were able to repatriate it and not pay taxes on it, it would end up somewhere else other than investments anyway (like executive bonuses). I am probably being skeptical but I really don't see their incentive to invest here regardless.

Crappy example but I watch Shark Tank and those guys wont even get into a deal usually if someone wants to make a product in the USA. They are always "Why wont you have it made in China?"
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Is it time to have Progressive/Libertarian Presidential candidates?

Perhaps we have different definitions of "Progressive", but I don't see how those two orientations can be reconciled. By my understanding, Progressives favor a strong, centralized government through which they can engineer social... er, "progress". Libertarians are diametrically opposed to strong, centralized government.

They both tend to be "socially liberal", but that's as far as the overlap goes. They disagree on almost everything else-- means and ends.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
No you are right. I was expanding on what he posted in a broader sense and as an example of the parallel economy Phelps wrote about. I honestly don't know what these companies would do if they brought their cash back. I think if they were able to repatriate it and not pay taxes on it, it would end up somewhere else other than investments anyway (like executive bonuses). I am probably being skeptical but I really don't see their incentive to invest here regardless.

Crappy example but I watch Shark Tank and those guys wont even get into a deal usually if someone wants to make a product in the USA. They are always "Why wont you have it made in China?"

I understand where you are coming from and I can't say that repatriating the cash would solve our ills. Would they invest in the domestic business or return it to share holders? I don't know. A good chunk of companies already have already done major buybacks, though dividends could be an option for some.

For them to invest, they need increased clarity as to where this country will be in 5 to 10 years and the monkey business in Washington from both sides cloud the picture. Immigration is a key component of future growth though and we need something done in this space. The only reason the US has grown faster than the developed European countries is b/c population growth has been faster with immigration. As I posted a few days back, we need to concentrate front running the "good immigration" candidates and figure out the best approach on those who cannot contribute as much to our economy. It really is a delicate balance, but our future financial security does depend on it.

As for the Shark Tank guys and the EX-IM Bank, yea, I can see that. It really is a difficult juggling act. On one hand, you want to promote Boeing to international customers and keeping the production and the like in the US. On the other hand, why should United's rivals across the pond get a better deal? Why is one company (Boeing) getting preferred treatment over United? I am not sure what is the best answer to this.

Finally, I am not sure where this fits into our discussion, if at all. But, I recently read where approximately 70% of the VC funds are spent in Cali, NY and Mass. So, three states are getting the lions share. Meanwhile, the manufacturing base in the MW and SE are being comparatively starved.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Perhaps we have different definitions of "Progressive", but I don't see how those two orientations can be reconciled. By my understanding, Progressives favor a strong, centralized government through which they can engineer social... er, "progress". Libertarians are diametrically opposed to strong, centralized government.

They both tend to be "socially liberal", but that's as far as the overlap goes. They disagree on almost everything else-- means and ends.

32577-2379-nnaza-a.jpg


You dont think there is any overlap? I think the drug policy, foreign policy, wars, and education are just a few. There might be some headbutts but I think it would be more productive.

Also I look back and think about all of the major policy issues and many of the Libertarians and Progressives dissented, though for different reasons, so maybe this business as usual shit would not actually get done in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
As I posted a few days back, we need to concentrate front running the "good immigration" candidates and figure out the best approach on those who cannot contribute as much to our economy.

Declaring yourself "pro-amnesty" is borderline suicidal in any Republican primary these days.

It really is a delicate balance, but our future financial security does depend on it.

Immigration is certainly important to our growth-dependent, shareholder-friendly economy. But the average Republican voter is more skeptical than ever that what's good for Boeing (or Wal-Mart, Archer-Daniels-Midland, etc.) is good for him as well.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Declaring yourself "pro-amnesty" is borderline suicidal in any Republican primary these days.



Immigration is certainly important to our growth-dependent, share-holder friendly economy. But the average Republican voter is more skeptical than ever that what's good for Boeing (or Wal-Mart, Archer-Daniels-Midland, etc.) is good for him as well.

My post a few days back was less about corporate security and more about straight up Federal Budgetary problems.

Both are tied together, but I am more concerned about the Federal Budget problems then I am Wal-Mart or any other corporate giant.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
You dont think there is any overlap? I think the drug policy, foreign policy, wars, and education are just a few. There might be some headbutts but I think it would be more productive.

There's some overlap on social issues, but the stark differences in preferred means and (non-social) ends would likely kill any chance of a "Grand Coalition" before it got off the ground.

While we're on the subject of political triangulation, here's one of the more useful graphics I've found:

political-triangle.png


Notice the limited space that modern democracies occupy (i.e. we're all "liberals" in the West). But within that triangle, there's significant distance between Progressives and Libertarians. Among American politicians, Paul and Warren are some of the least likely to find common cause together.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
That is a much better graphic than mine. I was thinking of a tandem that could capture what will be the future voting bloc in America. Something outside of the current pigsty that could at least have common ground on enough things to challenge to status quo.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Congressman optimistic Obama will grant immigrants legal status

By HECTOR BECERRA


In a fiery speech at the Los Angeles Convention Center on Saturday, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said he was confident after meeting with President Obama last week that the president will move forward in the coming months with an executive order that would grant legal status to millions of immigrants in the country illegally, possibly including the parents of American-born children.

We sat down with the president... and we said to him, 'Mr. President, we want you to be as generous and broad and wise as the Republicans have been small and mean-spirited.'
- U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)
Gutierrez, speaking on the first day of the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, also took aim at Republicans for failing to pass immigration reform legislation and warned that there would be a political price to pay. He chastised the harsh rhetoric in conservative corners against a surge of tens of thousands of Central American youths who illegally crossed the Southwestern border in recent months fleeing violence in their home countries.

"We sat down with the president of the United States and we said to him, 'Mr. President, we want you to be as generous and broad and wise as the Republicans have been small and mean-spirited,'" said Gutierrez, who has long been an outspoken advocate of immigration reform on the national stage. He said the president's response was positive.

Obama has said before that he's convinced House Republicans will not take action to reform immigration laws this year and vowed to use his executive authority to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress." Republicans have countered that this will only make existing border problems worse.

Last week, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the city would help shelter immigrant children who have been detained after crossing the border. But in other cities and towns across the country, including in California, pitched protests have erupted over plans to temporarily house the children.

This month, Homeland Security buses carrying children and families had to be re-routed to a facility in San Diego after protesters waving American flags blocked the convoy in the Riverside County city of Murrieta. A plan to house Central American children in a shuttered school in Lawrenceville, Va., was scuttled after another angry protest, and in Vassar, Mich., several dozen demonstrators, some carrying rifles and handguns, showed up to block plans for a similar facility there.

"We need to ask ourselves who we are as Americans in moments like this when we see hateful images," Garcetti said in a speech at the weekend conference. "As parents, how do we respond to children who we see with fear in their eyes, doing the most elemental thing that any one of us would do: try to find their parents?"

Though Republicans have criticized Obama for not doing enough to stem the surge of immigrant children, the administration has sought to hammer home a message that those crossing the border illegally will be sent back. Justice Department officials have announced plans to speed up court proceedings for unaccompanied youths and families, whose influx across the border threatens to paralyze an already sluggish court system. During a congressional hearing in the border city of McAllen, Texas, Republican leaders, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said the best response to the "humanitarian crisis" was to deport the Central American children back home as quickly as possible.


"We are a country of laws. We have to respect those laws, and if we do not today clearly send a message that you cannot come to the United States" illegally, Perry said, "then this is going to get worse."

Perry said a discussion on stalled immigration reform legislation would not happen until the border is secured, and warned about increasing anger in communities about the recent surge in illegal crossings.

A new Pew Research survey found Obama gets low ratings for his handling of the influx: A slight majority of respondents, 53%, said the legal process for dealing with Central American children should be sped up, even if it meant that some who might qualify for asylum would be deported. But 68% of people surveyed supported a "broad revamp" of the immigration system to allow some of the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally to obtain legal status if they met certain requirements.

Although Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, the president has been sharply criticized for historically high numbers of deportations under his administration.

Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, once referred to Obama as the "deporter in chief." But on Saturday participants said they were heartened by what they were hearing from the president. Gutierrez said that when he and members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus met with Obama, he told the president, "You are our last hope for fairness and justice."

"The president has to act," Gutierrez said. "And I believe the president will act."

Switching between English and Spanish, Gutierrez also warned Republicans about the consequences of the often harsh rhetoric over the recent influx of immigrant children. He invoked the experience of California, which became a solidly Democratic state after former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson successfully pushed for Proposition 187, a 1994 voter-approved ballot measure that would have denied health and education benefits to those here illegally but was later overturned by the federal courts. Wilson's move has been cited as a major reason for a surge in the number of Latinos becoming reliably Democratic voters.

"We need to raise our voices, make ourselves citizens, sign up to vote and punish those who speak ill and criminalize children who come to our border," Gutierrez said in Spanish to rousing cheers.

That's warm and comforting.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Congressman optimistic Obama will grant immigrants legal status


This month, Homeland Security buses carrying children and families had to be re-routed to a facility in San Diego after protesters waving American flags blocked the convoy in the Riverside County city of Murrieta. A plan to house Central American children in a shuttered school in Lawrenceville, Va., was scuttled after another angry protest, and in Vassar, Mich., several dozen demonstrators, some carrying rifles and handguns, showed up to block plans for a similar facility there.

That's warm and comforting.

As is this.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Speaking of America's moral obligations toward certain refugee groups, here's an article from The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty titled "Why America is Duty Bound to Help Iraqi Christians:"

Just 11 years ago, there were 1.5 million Christians living in Iraq. Since the U.S. war there, that number has plummeted to approximately 400,000 — and it is still falling fast. The chaos created by the U.S. invasion, occupation, and withdrawal, as well as the ongoing Syrian civil war and insurgent-fueled unrest in much of Iraq, has dramatically increased the persecution and pressure on Iraq's Christians and other religious minorities.

ISIS, the emergent Islamist terrorist group that spans from Syria into Iraq, has already taken over Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. They painted signs on the walls of Christian homes, meant to indicate to all the presence of a minority they hate. They gave Christians a choice and a deadline: Pay an exorbitant tax, convert to Islam, leave, or be put to death. Most have fled after having their property confiscated. Five Christian families, according to The New York Times, had members too ill to flee to Kurdistan or Turkey, and so consented to a forced conversion to Islam. ISIS burned Christian churches, and dug up a shrine many Middle Eastern Christians believe is the final resting place of the prophet Jonah, along with another site said to contain the Biblical prophet Seth.

Reading these headlines and tut-tutting isn't enough. The U.S. owes Christians and other persecuted Iraqi minorities assistance.

For years, America has proven itself both unwilling and unable to restore peace between warring ideological, ethnic, and religious factions in Iraq through military force. And nobody should think that a renewed American military presence is a practical way to pacify the region, which seems to be transforming according to an internal logic the U.S. cannot significantly alter.

But the U.S. has sent arms to Iraq to aid its fight against extremist groups. And the U.S. still sends over $1 billion in foreign aid. As such, America could premise some of this aid, or even an increase, on the government doing a better or more vigorous job of protecting religious minorities in Iraq. Of course, this may not be the most important or effective means of assisting persecuted Christians. And in fact, Iraq has rejected some extra forms of foreign assistance, fearing it makes the new regime look like a puppet.

So the U.S. should look for ways to provide direct monetary and diplomatic assistance to neighboring states in the region where persecuted Iraqis are seeking refuge, perhaps even going so far as to directly assist in the emerging centers of authority in Kurdistan, where some refugees have sought protection from ISIS, and which continues to prove itself capable of maintaining some order and security.

Although I'm generally inclined toward a more restrictive position on immigration, the U.S. should, as a matter of practice, be especially generous in granting refugee status to the collateral victims of the war we started in Iraq. It should even offer some refugees of ISIS persecution the material resources to emigrate to America if they so desire.

The dream of transforming Iraq into an incubator of Arab liberalism has turned into a nightmare for religious minorities. America's intervention in Iraq, and its support of Syrian and Libyan rebels, have created a disastrous disorder in which Islamist threats thrive.

Mosul was a home for Christians for as long as Christianity existed. Not anymore. Now, the U.S. cannot restore these people to their homes, or reverse the desecration of Christian shrines. But our diplomatic, financial, and moral energies should be used to protect them from any further harm.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
You dont think there is any overlap? I think the drug policy, foreign policy, wars, and education are just a few. There might be some headbutts but I think it would be more productive.
The biggest conflict between progressives and libertarians on social issues is the role that the state plays in the attainment of individual liberty. Both would likely support gay marriage, for example, but a progressive would want to pass laws specifically enforcing the legality of gay marriage while a libertarian would counter that we should wipe "marriage" out of the law all together and you can go do whatever you want on your own time.

I'll also touch on the specific issues you brought up:

The incompatibility of libertarian and progressive ideology on drug policy relates to health care. A libertarian would be just fine with you frying your skull with whatever poison you want to put in your body, but the libertarian would also tell you "you're on your own" when it comes to finding health care or insurance. Conversely, a progressive's ideal of single-payer healthcare forces them to confront the fact that their "socially liberal" drug policy creates a burden on the state, which would be paying for the treatment of drug users with tax dollars.

I'll acknowledge that the libertarian and the progressive would likely reach a similar place of non-interventionism when it comes to foreign conflicts that do not directly impact the interests or security of the United States, I'd argue that they would take different approaches when it comes to matters that do impact us. Progressives tend to blame America for our enemies hating us, while a libertarian wouldn't hesitate to defend our country if another nation was an aggressor against us.

I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding education, since that's an area where progressives and libertarians are diametrically opposed. Progressives (including progressive Republicans like Jeb Bush) have gone all-in for Common Core while the "purest" libertarian would abolish public education entirely, at least at the federal level.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
When you have a three party system, you get legalized drugs from progressives and libertarians and government health insurance from progressives and republicans.

Besides, we already pay for drug abuse in our health care system. Wouldn't we save money from emptying prisons and the court system of drug offenders?

I agree on education, I don't see Rs or Ds giving up federal influence on education any time soon.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
US citizens legally carrying firearms to a protest vs a US Congressman encouraging "his community" to make themselves citizens and punish those opposed to illegal immigration...yeah, I get that.

The punishing he was suggesting was in the ballot box. Carrying firearms to an event designed to stop a bus full of kids is a little more hostile than voting against the people who said the bus should be driving in the other direction.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The punishing he was suggesting was in the ballot box. Carrying firearms to an event designed to stop a bus full of kids is a little more hostile than voting against the people who said the bus should be driving in the other direction.

How do we know that? Do you know the representative better than I do? There's a difference between immigration and a designed invasion. Some 57,000 since October, 2013 have crossed the border from the south.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,992
Has anyone here seen Olympus Has Fallen? Watched it last night. Kind of stupid movie, also kind of awesome movie because it's basically Die Hard in the White House.

But anyways the President and Vice President get taken hostage so the Speaker of the House (Morgan Freeman) is in charge. I sarcastically remarked how fortunate they were to have Morgan Freeman and his calming influence + infinite wisdom as the Speaker. My girlfriend goes "seriously though... John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, or Morgan Freeman... who you got?"

I mean... we'd all take no-qualifications Morgan Freeman, right? How scary is that?
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Has anyone here seen Olympus Has Fallen? Watched it last night. Kind of stupid movie, also kind of awesome movie because it's basically Die Hard in the White House.

But anyways the President and Vice President get taken hostage so the Speaker of the House (Morgan Freeman) is in charge. I sarcastically remarked how fortunate they were to have Morgan Freeman and his calming influence + infinite wisdom as the Speaker. My girlfriend goes "seriously though... John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, or Morgan Freeman... who you got?"

I mean... we'd all take no-qualifications Morgan Freeman, right? How scary is that?
What a body count...lol. Seriously though yeah I would take Freeman over our current "leadership".
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
How do we know that? Do you know the representative better than I do? There's a difference between immigration and a designed invasion. Some 57,000 since October, 2013 have crossed the border from the south.

I don't need to know the guy personally. I read the article and it said as much:

"Gutierrez, speaking on the first day of the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, also took aim at Republicans for failing to pass immigration reform legislation and warned that there would be a political price to pay."

It also said that "He invoked the experience of California, which became a solidly Democratic state after former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson successfully pushed for Proposition 187, a 1994 voter-approved ballot measure that would have denied health and education benefits to those here illegally but was later overturned by the federal courts."

Seems clear that he is seeking political support to push those who disagree with him out of office. It is much, much less likely that this is an "invasion" force coming to destroy America.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,992
Seems clear that he is seeking political support to push those who disagree with him out of office. It is much, much less likely that this is an "invasion" force coming to destroy America.

Even if it is, we've got Gerard Butler sooooooooooo.............

Wait, what? He's Scottish? Nvm, close the borders.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
The biggest conflict between progressives and libertarians on social issues is the role that the state plays in the attainment of individual liberty. Both would likely support gay marriage, for example, but a progressive would want to pass laws specifically enforcing the legality of gay marriage while a libertarian would counter that we should wipe "marriage" out of the law all together and you can go do whatever you want on your own time.

I'll also touch on the specific issues you brought up:

The incompatibility of libertarian and progressive ideology on drug policy relates to health care. A libertarian would be just fine with you frying your skull with whatever poison you want to put in your body, but the libertarian would also tell you "you're on your own" when it comes to finding health care or insurance. Conversely, a progressive's ideal of single-payer healthcare forces them to confront the fact that their "socially liberal" drug policy creates a burden on the state, which would be paying for the treatment of drug users with tax dollars.

I'll acknowledge that the libertarian and the progressive would likely reach a similar place of non-interventionism when it comes to foreign conflicts that do not directly impact the interests or security of the United States, I'd argue that they would take different approaches when it comes to matters that do impact us. Progressives tend to blame America for our enemies hating us, while a libertarian wouldn't hesitate to defend our country if another nation was an aggressor against us.

I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding education, since that's an area where progressives and libertarians are diametrically opposed. Progressives (including progressive Republicans like Jeb Bush) have gone all-in for Common Core while the "purest" libertarian would abolish public education entirely, at least at the federal level.

We seldom agree on politics, which isn't a secret to anyone who spends any time on this thread. I wonder if it is because you have different definitions of some words as I do. This many not have anything to do with your post, but I am sincerely curious how you would define the word "liberty."

Some may think this is a silly question but is one that political philosphers have debated for centuries. I suspect that words like "liberty" have very different meanings for each of us.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Has anyone here seen Olympus Has Fallen? Watched it last night. Kind of stupid movie, also kind of awesome movie because it's basically Die Hard in the White House.

But anyways the President and Vice President get taken hostage so the Speaker of the House (Morgan Freeman) is in charge. I sarcastically remarked how fortunate they were to have Morgan Freeman and his calming influence + infinite wisdom as the Speaker. My girlfriend goes "seriously though... John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, or Morgan Freeman... who you got?"

I mean... we'd all take no-qualifications Morgan Freeman, right? How scary is that?

Ughhh....can I choose Canada?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I don't need to know the guy personally. I read the article and it said as much:

"Gutierrez, speaking on the first day of the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, also took aim at Republicans for failing to pass immigration reform legislation and warned that there would be a political price to pay."

It also said that "He invoked the experience of California, which became a solidly Democratic state after former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson successfully pushed for Proposition 187, a 1994 voter-approved ballot measure that would have denied health and education benefits to those here illegally but was later overturned by the federal courts."

Seems clear that he is seeking political support to push those who disagree with him out of office. It is much, much less likely that this is an "invasion" force coming to destroy America.

One could also read that statement and think, "IRS scandal", certain DOJ cases they prosecuted and ones they didn't, etc. When Reagan and even Bush talked about "punish your enemies", we knew they were talking about the evil empire and radical Islamists. Today when Obama and guys like this talk about "punish your enemies", they're talking about Republicans who disagree with them. Cute.
 
Top