This has been on my mind for quite some time now that the Dems have managed to take both Houses of Congress and are now in a position to try to implement their ideas. I don't expect anything great of this bunch of people, remember they didn't win the Congress by giving people a clear set of ideas the way the Republican Congress did back in '94 but by a brilliant smear campaign, "October Surprises" (Mark Foley being one of them) and of course non stop bashing of the Iraq War and President Bush. Anyway, here are some issues that need to be resolved and how the Dems are going to go about them....


Illegal Immigration. Not wishing to "offend" the zillions of Latin Americans here of various stripes, lest they don't vote Democrat, they're going to do a whole bunch of nothing on this one. They'll declare a border fence "mean" or "racist" or something, declare that they can't go and kick out the millions of illegal immigrants already here and quietly hope this issue flickers out. In the meantimes, zillions more illegal immigrants are going to come pouring across our borders, who aren't interested in learning english, who aren't interested in becoming Americans, who won't integrate with the mainstream of our society and who WILL remember that a good chunk of the South West once belonged to Mexico, sooner or later THAT is going to be a problem.

Energy, fossil fuels and otherwise. What is needed on this one is new and more infrastructure (read power plants, electrical lines, drilling for our own oil, newer more modern refineries, killing the "boutique" fuels that have to be specially formulated and sent to various parts of our country at various times of the year, opening up of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility, using coal etc) but that ain't going to happen. The environmentalist wackos have the testicles of every single Democrat, including Hillary Clinton, firmly in a lockbox and they've got the only key. What WILL happen is that Hillary and Pelosi will trot out the newest alpaca wool sweaters and claim how warm they are and how they can be used to keep people warm in lieu of people actually using their home heating systems to keep their homes warm. After all, electricity, gas, propane, fuel oil, wood either creates or is produced from "greenhouse emmissions" and harms the earth:rolleyes:. Also, instead of actually drilling for more of our oil to keep our economy going, the Dems are going to help ease the pain at the pump by helping themselves to more of our money through taxes on gasoline. Yup, taxation as a moral cause. All in the name of keeping people from driving those awful SUVs and contributing to global warming.:rolleyes: Of course, this isn't going to cause the soccer mom, who commands a $100,000 a year salary to change her evil ways and give up the SUV, it's going to hit the poor schlub who is barely making ends meet in the first place. That person is going to have his gas, heating, electric, food and rent bills go up because America is "addicted" to oil (what WERE the Arabs doing with all that oil before we in America found a use for it?) and needs it for the transportation of food and goods, to get commuters to work and other things that make this economy work, but the Dems, libs and environmentalist wackos won't see it that way, dammit. Oh, no, no. As soon the moonbeams and granola is perfected as a use to power our economy, such an issue will go away. From a logical perspective, people complain of Big Oil having too much influence in Congress and are charging too much for their product as it is, imagine if Big Government tapped into a stream of revenue from high fuel taxes, do you honestly THINK that they'll just give up that revenue stream even if a new source of energy is found and perfected? The way Congress spends other people's money, the way these guys dive into pork barrel projects, the way these guys use funds from taxes to fund giveaways for votes, the way state and governmental workers keep demanding better and better wages and retirement packages that far exceeds the benefits anyone doing an equivalent job in the private sector can HOPE to get? Even IF people learned Magic and began flying around on broomsticks, do you honestly think Uncle Democrat is going to give up the kind of revenue gas taxes would create? I don't think so. Their only solution to our growing energy shortages WILL be higher taxes, which will keep the Environmentalist Wackos happy as it won't be messing up "nature," the Arabs in the Middle East will make just as much money from the sale of oil and not worry about competition from domestic sources, Mid East and Latin American tyrants will be happy because they can just turn off the oil spigot if we here in the States start yapping too much about trvialities like human rights, free elections, not wiping out Israel, the Chi Coms will love it because high oil taxes will stall OUR economy while theirs purrs right along, our Dear Leaders, the Dems will come into possession of a fine new stream of revenue they'll never part with and they'll be able to smear ANYONE who DARE suggests lowering fuel taxes to help our economy as being against the environment or something. The only people getting screwed will be the average working American, dammit.

Foreign policy. Well, the Euroweenies are more than overjoyed now that the Dems have taken Congress, they now have people that they can “work with.” Which means the Dems, the Euroweenies and the U.N. will do what they do best, which is nothing. Take the awful slaughter going on in Darfur, out in the Sudan. The Dems will do their best to get the kind of person to represent the U.S. who will go before the U.N. and state the frapping obvious. “Gee, it's just terrible what is going on in Darfur.” On an ambitious day, they may threaten to send Jimmy Carter down there to ask the killing be stopped, or get the U.N. to “condemn” the genocide that is happening in Darfur (translation; the U.N. will oficially call Sudan a really bad nation, bad, bad, bad nation!)

Oh, I forgot, the Dems will use their favorite tactic, The Negotiation. Let's see with problem nations like Iraq, which has promised to wipe out Israel, which has promised non-stop war with the West till the world kneels to Islam, which is working on nuclear weapons and has been purchasing advanced weapon systems from the Ruskies and the Chi-Coms. And which has no interest with getting along with the West, or human rights or any of that garbage we here in the States hold so dear. The Dems will use their WMD, The Negotiation and it will go something like this;

1.The Negotiation
2.Multi-lateral Negotiation
3.Uni-lateral Negotiation
4.Aggressive Negotiation
5.Partisan Negotiation
6.Guerilla Negotiation
7.Furious Negotiation
8.HEY! You better listen to us or we're going to get the U.N. to call you bad names!
9.We're going to pee really, really hard!
10.We can't “rush” into things like sanctions, or miliatry strikes.

Iraq. This one is hard to predict. The moveon.org and the Daily Kos goons willing to crucify the first Dem to actually try to win in Iraq and the fact that cutting and running is going to give the GOP unbelieveable amounts of political ammunition to use against them in the upcoming elections, it's somewhat difficult to predict what's going to happen. But I think that the Dems are going to try to get the American people to accept defeat in Iraq, they just won't call it that. I'd say that the Dems will call for a “phased redeployment” of our troops. The troops will be redeplyoed to some strategic location like Guam and the Dems will see what happens. If Iraq manages to survive, which it won't, they'll break their arms patting themselves on the back for their “brilliant strategy,” if Iraq falls into the hands of “insurgents” and Iranian agents, (which it would, you can kiss the hopes of a free Iraq goodbye, the “insurgents” will slaughter people wholesale till the point is gotten across that you do NOT cooperate wtih the Americas the Iranians will swoop in with their own puppet government and those guys know how to squelch dissent Iraq will be a bloodbath NO ONE will ever believe that American has the stamina to win a war if you just fight them long enough), they'll try to pin the blame on Bush for not having a good enough plan for how to deal with Iraq in the first place, or they'll whine that they were only following the recomendations of the Iraq Study Group, or they'll go to the U.N. and state what a terrible thing Iraq turned out to be, dammit.


Let's see, no decisive action about our border with Mexico, no decisive energy policy other than raise taxes, no decisive action about the brutal thugs who infest this earth, no decisive action on Iraq, this is not counting OTHER issues that the Dems are not going to decide upon like failing schools, the Social Security/Medicaid timebomb, a simpler tax code and tort reform.

Expect a whole bunch of nothing from these guys, I hope that all who voted for the Dems are proud of yourselves. All the dems have is rage, smear and blame, when those run out they'll offer nothing, dammit.

I hope that all who voted for the Dems are proud of yourselves.

I am. Thank you.


All the dems have is rage, smear and blame.....

And Congress. It is the Republicans who have nothing. :)

Excellent post, Darth. The assessment you have given of the Democrats is the reason they are so seldom in power and will once again be out of power once the anger over the war dissipates.

As I see it, not only is the majority of the planet disgusted with Republican Foreign Policy, more importantly the American electorate are also. The only bad thing was that the Democrats won both houses, they would have been better with one.Unfortunatly its too little too late, the damage is already done.

The damage won't be done until they take over in January. Then the damage will really begin to kick in.

I usually dont get into US Domestic politics much Frogger, at the end of the day its your country and yourself and everyone elses dollars pay the bills, so I guess its your call. On the other hand, Foreign Policy effects everyone, they couldnt had made a worse job if they tried.

Bush blew it. You'll get no argument from me there. He allowed himself to be controlled by a small group of insiders and didn't keep his finger on the pulse of either the nation or the world.

That does not change the fact that the Democrats will be an almost unmitigated disaster.

Fair enough, I would agree with that, as an interested viewer I just cant see whos gonna step out of the crowd and lead America in a strong but fair direction, certainly none of the hopefuls circulating Pennsylvania Avenue at the minute.

I hope it is Rudy Giulianni. While I don't agree with him on everything I agree with him on enough and I think he has the personality needed to bring the nation together.

Foreign policy. Well, the Euroweenies are more than overjoyed now that the Dems have taken Congress, they now have people that they can “work with.” Which means the Dems, the Euroweenies and the U.N. will do what they do best, which is nothing. Take the awful slaughter going on in Darfur, out in the Sudan. The Dems will do their best to get the kind of person to represent the U.S. who will go before the U.N. and state the frapping obvious. “Gee, it's just terrible what is going on in Darfur.” On an ambitious day, they may threaten to send Jimmy Carter down there to ask the killing be stopped, or get the U.N. to “condemn” the genocide that is happening in Darfur (translation; the U.N. will oficially call Sudan a really bad nation, bad, bad, bad nation!)


That conflict has been going on for a long time now. The world doesn't really care what happens there - least of all the US. If the greatest military power really wanted an intervention to stop the genocide, the US with republicans at the wheel has had several years to stop the Janjaweed, who would be no match for 100.000 heavily armed marines. But there is no oil in Sudan, there is nothing of interest, therefore there will never be a western armed intervention, only the creation of discussiongroups and political pledges. Perhaps the african union can be persuaded to provide the manpower (and the body bags).....


Let's see with problem nations like Iraq, which has promised to wipe out Israel, which has promised non-stop war with the West till the world kneels to Islam, which is working on nuclear weapons and has been purchasing advanced weapon systems from the Ruskies and the Chi-Coms.

Didn't you already "deal" with Iraq? :)

elp,

If the United States unilaterally went into The Sudan the outcry from the rest of the world would be deafening. It would also be deafening from the Cindy Sheehans in our own country.

Darfur is a United Nations responsibility and the UN under its present leadership has been a joke.

When Political Partys change office the Departmental Advisors dont change, in effect the dickheads who advised on invading Iraq will still be in their jobs, the only people going are the ones who acted on their advice, a Congressional review of the whole dissmal affair should be ordered, and heads should role.
Giulianni acted with great dignity during and after 9/11, and helped calm the NY population, he is a good man, not so sure if hes up for the top job tho,I dont even know his party, another concern I would have is, he sounds as if hes Italian American and probably an RC,remember what happened to the last and so far only RC President.

Sudan is state sponsered expansionism of Islam thru voilence, and it is a disgrace that we all sit back and do nothing about it,but your right, theres no oil, so the people there are fucked.
On the other side of the coin there are similarities with the Palestinians, theyve no oil, so their fucked also.

elp,

If the United States unilaterally went into The Sudan the outcry from the rest of the world would be deafening. It would also be deafening from the Cindy Sheehans in our own country.

Darfur is a United Nations responsibility and the UN under its present leadership has been a joke.

I know. There are many options to unilateralism - NATO, fight-first-get-the-UN- mandate-later, "coalition of the willing". My point is that no one cares much about Dafur for anything else than populistic reasons, and the republicans did exactly what the democrats will do - practically nothing.

And you can't just blame the UN - there is still the need for powerful countries to do their part... starting, for instance, by putting forth a resolution for the immediate intervention in Dafur by force, like NATO did in Kosovo. But as long as there is no will, there certainly will be no way.

Sudan is state sponsered expansionism of Islam thru voilence, and it is a disgrace that we all sit back and do nothing about it,but your right, theres no oil, so the people there are fucked.
On the other side of the coin there are similarities with the Palestinians, theyve no oil, so their fucked also.

Excactly - but at least they're a part of the whole Israel issue that needs to be sorted, so contrary to the Sudan the great powers has some interest there. Ironic that their misery is also their only opportunity.

Good post, Darth. I'd say, all in all, pretty spot on.

But there is no oil in Sudan, there is nothing of interest, therefore there will never be a western armed intervention, only the creation of discussiongroups and political pledges.
Sudan has oil. The Chinese have been tripping over themselves to get it.

Sudan has oil. The Chinese have been tripping over themselves to get it.
Then its out of the reach of the west, so same thing.

That does not change the fact that the Democrats will be an almost unmitigated disaster.

I don't see disaster. What I do see is a whole lot of nothing happening, as the Democrats will have a wholly uninspired, yet mostly faultless, reign, and will lose it rather quickly, if not in two years, at least in four. Still, it will be better than the last six. Even failing to fuck up royally will put them ahead of that.

True progressivism will have many more years to wait before America is ready for it. Unless the Demos can pull a true leader out of their hats in the precious little time they have left, their years are numbered.

:rolleyes:...nut job rightwingers, doom and gloom! As the Bush ride has been near perfect!

American, you are coming dangerously close to reaching the amazingly awesome power of Trav-style sarcasm. Try two eye-rolls next time.

Edit: Hmm, the post before he edited it was just an eye-roll, and nothing more.

George Bush done for America,
what King Herod done for childminding.

American, you are coming dangerously close to reaching the amazingly awesome power of Trav-style sarcasm. Try two eye-rolls next time.
LOL - That does look like a leftwing Trav post.

Now I am afraid, you don't feel it coming on either, it just happens!
I will seek treatment, ok.:)

Hey, wait a minute, Darth Be'lal used two eye rolls in his post. Am I ok?

"Anyway, here are some issues that need to be resolved and how the Dems are going to go about them...."

Oh, I see Darth is privy to the Democrat timetable...sorry, could not resist!

Anyway, read the post and it is typical of the rightwing. Anti environment, anti world community really an anti humanity agenda.
Really, Darth move beside a nuclear power plant, under the wires and allow your front yard to be a toxic waste dump. That would create jobs, studing the immediate areas environmental effects on you, to be paid out of your pocket, be happy then?

The Democrats have decided to broker a fair and lasting peace between Israel and Pal, were both sides respect each others right to exist,share security and trade. This has a knock on effect. Your average Muslim dosent believe the US is the big bad wolf anymore and support for alQaeda slumps. A fair and honest Gov comes to power in Iraq and the insurgency seems to be over,the last American troops pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan on the same day, on their way to secure Dafur from insurgents, which wont take long,there follows a long period of peace and prosperity........................................ .................................................. . well, it is Christmas.

I see a lot of good coming from this. It will force both Bush and the Democrats to compromise on most issues. And either nothing will get done, due to Bush using his "Veto" power or compromise will occur.

Actually ... the early book (aka: future book) has the dems winning as many as 80 (eighty) seats in the '08 house elections on top of the 30-something seat advantage they already have from the '06 elections. The projections for the senate are in the neighborhood of 8 more dem seats, putting them just short of the 60 seats to become filibuster proof.

Given that 70% of americans want an end to the Iraq mess and Bush has blown off the ISG report and blown off the mandate handed to the democratic party by the '06 elections and given the fact he is in seriously deep denial about the state of affairs in Iraq ... it is entirely possibly the people will speak even louder in '08 than in '06.

All in all, the republicans won't have much time to be f*cking with the dems for the next 2 years. If they're smart, which is debatable, they will be concentrating on how to remove Bush and Cheney from office, Nixon style, and try to save what is left of their party.

More than likely, the trash heap of history can begin clearing a spot for the republican party ... right next to the WHIG's would be nice.

More than likely, the trash heap of history can begin clearing a spot for the republican party ... right next to the WHIG's would be nice.
:thumbs:

More than likely, the trash heap of history can begin clearing a spot for the republican party ... right next to the WHIG's would be nice.
You're out of your mind if you think the Republican party is going to fade away in your lifetime.

You're out of your mind if you think the Republican party is going to fade away in your lifetime.

Time will tell my friend.

Time will tell my friend.

You don't exactly have a terrific record when it comes to predictions, Dop.

Time will tell my friend.
Republicans reproduce at a greater rate, and children are more likely to vote the same way their parents vote. Republicans themselves will and have been changing their position on issues. Excluding the idea of another war or judiciary insanity (such as banning abortion, even though that will likely never happen), things look brighter for the Republican party than for the Democrats.

You don't exactly have a terrific record when it comes to predictions, Dop.

I don't accept your premise that I made a prediction. I offered my opinion and that is quite different than a prediction.

Now, are you saying the republican party is in hunky-dory shape right now, with no internal problems due to Bush's Iraq denial and they're good to go for the next 2 years and that they will indeed take back the house and senate or was your post simply a chance to take a shot at me with no intent of offering any content beyond that point?

and children are more likely to vote the same way their parents vote.
It seems to me that the youth is usually liberal, regardless of their parents. I know many kids who voted for Democrats in the 06' election who have Republican parents.

Has there been a study about kids voting like their parents?

It seems to me that the youth is usually liberal, regardless of their parents. I know many kids who voted for Democrats in the 06' election who have Republican parents.

Has there been a study about kids voting like their parents?
I'm not sure where it was originated, but here it is.

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated, politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given the fact that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.

WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831)

It seems to me that the youth is usually liberal, regardless of their parents. I know many kids who voted for Democrats in the 06' election who have Republican parents.

Has there been a study about kids voting like their parents?

Yeah, but thank God they eventually grow more mature and begin to vote Republican.:)

Is it a myth that most immigrants, especially Mexicans tend to vote Democrat. They arent too slow in the breeding Department.

poor people vote democrat, because they want the handouts.. thats why you see all the big cities are normally democrat, because lots of poor people live in them.

I would expect a stereotypical mexican to vote democrat... normally democrats give the PERSON a better deal... i mean, mexicans could give a DAMN about any direction the gov't is going, they just want what is best for them. And Democrats normally give the poor more handouts.

Yeah, but thank God they eventually grow more mature and begin to vote Republican.:)
No. They either become regular Democrats who are not as far-left or Republicans. If you notice, all the Democrat senators are "grown up" and of a fairly old age.

poor people vote democrat, because they want the handouts.. thats why you see all the big cities are normally democrat, because lots of poor people live in them.
Poor people vote Democrat? No. Poor people are usually un-educated and vote for religious reasons.

The cities, who tend to have the more educated population and colleges tend to vote with the Democrats.

Poor people vote Democrat? No. Poor people are usually un-educated and vote for religious reasons.

The cities, who tend to have the more educated population and colleges tend to vote with the Democrats.

is that what you think?

Since when are ALL poor people religious?? or even MOST poor people?

MOST poor people just want easier lives, so they go with whatever party gives them more. Since Republicans are all about people supporting themselves, its no secret that the poor vote democrat... because democrats normally are the ones giving out more handouts... this is 101 stuff here.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that all the "educated" people vote democrat .. that's a farse if i ever read one.

In the words of Mr. Garrison from southpark:

"Okay children can someone answer who is not a total retard? Come on don't be shy.. "

I'm not sure where it was originated, but here it is.
To be honest, I think there are people who are liberal-republicans and conservative-democrats. Those are the people, the fence sitters, who sway elections. And I don't think they took that into consideration. They just gave 2 options, liberal and conservative. But the people who are kind of a mixture of both were FORCED to pick one side or the other. And I don't think most Americans are one side or the other.

And based on the current issues at hand the liberal-republicans voted in large for the democrats this time around (allowing the Democrats the take control of Congress), even though they most likely would have picked conservative in that poll. But based on the CURRENT issues of today they obviously didn't go with their conservative bent.

Since when are ALL poor people religious?? or even MOST poor people?
Look at the towns in the south. Are they really religious? Yes. Are they fairly un-educated? Yes. Who do they vote for? The Republicans. The South has some of the most un-educated population! And they vote for Republicans ALWAYS.

MOST poor people just want easier lives, so they go with whatever party gives them more.
The problem with this is that they don't realize the Democrats have their best interests.

Look at the towns in the south. Are they really religious? Yes. Are they fairly un-educated? Yes. Who do they vote for? The Republicans. The South has some of the most un-educated population! And they vote for Republicans ALWAYS.

The problem with this is that they don't realize the Democrats have their best interests.

Wow.. i didnt know everyone down south was uneducated... geez if i were from the south i'd call you an Bigot, an asshole, and tell you to get your head out of your ass and quit thinking that just because someone votes republican there must be something "wrong" with them.

Here is a nice example.. Ohio is pretty much an ALL red state... but Cleveland is solid blue. Cleveland is the most economically depressed city in the united states. The main reason cleveland is blue is because the many poor people VOTE DEMOCRAT because, believe it or not OD, they KNOW that they will get government handouts. Geez, who knew that everyone who isn't OD actually KNEW something about the system? And who knew that while you might put up a fence from seeing it, the south actually votes on issues and candidates, and aren't just a bunch of inbred, toothless hicks who have never been to school..

wow you came off like a stuck up idiot on that one OD, i hope you are on drugs or something.

I mean.. if someone is religious.. does that MEAN they are "uneducated"? Can you be smart and be religious? You sure make it seem like that's not very likely... and i can tell you right now you are WAYYYYYYY off on this one.

Wow.. i didnt know everyone down south was uneducated...
I never said that.

just because someone votes republican there must be something "wrong" with them.
I never said that.

Cleveland is the most economically depressed city in the united states.
Really? I've never heard this.

And who knew that while you might put up a fence from seeing it, the south actually votes on issues and candidates, and aren't just a bunch of inbred, toothless hicks who have never been to school..
Their issues are religion. They are, afterall, called the Bible Belt. And for you to think the South isn't the most religious part of America is laughable on your part.

I mean.. if someone is religious.. does that MEAN they are "uneducated"? Can you be smart and be religious? You sure make it seem like that's not very likely... and i can tell you right now you are WAYYYYYYY off on this one.
Since there is a Seperation of Church and State in the United States (the Supreme Court ruled on this) then voting on religious issues is fairly wrong in my opinion. However, if you want to be religious and keep it out of the government, fine. I would say that religious person is a smart, bright person. However, many religious people want religion to be apart of our government and I, as well as the Supreme Court, disagree with that.

Something to look at Decka:

According to recent US census figures, since President Bush assumed power in 2000 poverty has risen by 7%, the proportion of those without healthcare has risen by 9%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. But where the poor are most numerous, it seems the Democrats are weakest. The 10 states with the lowest household median income, where people are least likely to have healthcare and most likely to live in poverty, all voted Republican in 2004. Not only are they poor, but they're getting poorer. The five states with the steepest falls in income backed Bush.

Indeed, if anything the Democrats' base seems to be among the wealthy. The same census figures showed that seven of the 10 states with the highest median incomes voted Democrat, and citizens who lived in Democrat states were less likely to live in poverty and more likely to have health insurance. And these states are getting wealthier. The five with the sharpest increase in income all voted Democrat in 2004.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0918-21.htm

As the US is by far the wealthiest nation in the Galaxy, whats wrong with giving its more disadvantaged citizens better handouts than the previous Administration,as long as its done in a proper manner. Better that than throwing it away on some deadend Defence spending budget.

I see a lot of good coming from this. It will force both Bush and the Democrats to compromise on most issues. And either nothing will get done, due to Bush using his "Veto" power or compromise will occur.
Please bear with an unenlightened european: can the President veto laws indefinably, or is there a maximum of three times or so?

Interesting post Darth. I wish I could be a truly dis-interested observer, but the US has such an influence on the rest of the world, that we cannot ignore your politics.
As I see it, the Democrats have the year 2007 to convince American voters that they can do a job governing. However, I am afraid many of your predictions will come true. If the Democrats cannot provide some good solutions, then there may well be another Republican President.

Please bear with an unenlightened european: can the President veto laws indefinably, or is there a maximum of three times or so?
I believe he can do so as much as he wants. However, then when the Republicans want to push something in Congress, the Democrats will all vote "NO" and then Bush won't be able to approve it. So in a sense, if anyone wants to get anything accomplished they have to work together.

Look at the towns in the south. Are they really religious? Yes. Are they fairly un-educated? Yes. Who do they vote for? The Republicans.
::Shakes head in shame, and with a sigh of pity, says...:: You're such a fool, Overdose. What portion of the population do you think the "republican" south represents? Even if you were talking about the holdouts in Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky AND Tennessee, you'd STILL wind up with fewer votes than you would with Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles alone. Check out a population density map sometime, and then proceed to tell me how we (as a country) vote.

I believe he can do so as much as he wants. However, then when the Republicans want to push something in Congress, the Democrats will all vote "NO" and then Bush won't be able to approve it. So in a sense, if anyone wants to get anything accomplished they have to work together.

Once the President vetos a bill, the Congress can pass it over his/her objections by getting a 2/3rds majority to vote in favor. I suppose if they kept sending him a bill without a 2/3rds majority he could keep vetoing it as much as he wanted, but I don't know if it's ever happened.

As to the second part, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If 51 Republicans vote yes and 49 Democrats vote no, it still passes.

I never said that.

You might as well have.. you said that people down south are uneducated and vote for religious reasons... here i'll repost it just in case you forgot what you wrote:

Poor people are usually un-educated and vote for religious reasons.

Look at the towns in the south. Are they really religious? Yes. Are they fairly un-educated? Yes. Who do they vote for? The Republicans. The South has some of the most un-educated population! And they vote for Republicans ALWAYS.


You sound like an egotistical bigot...


Really? I've never heard this.

I just heard it on the radio.. we beat out Detroit for the most depressed city in the US of A... yay.


Their issues are religion. They are, afterall, called the Bible Belt. And for you to think the South isn't the most religious part of America is laughable on your part.

I realize that there is a religious influence down south, but its not like it is twice as much as anywhere else. I think you over-exaggerate the religious aspect down south just because you can't explain why they keep voting republican... and then you label them a bunch of poor un-educated people.. way to go.


Since there is a Seperation of Church and State in the United States (the Supreme Court ruled on this) then voting on religious issues is fairly wrong in my opinion. However, if you want to be religious and keep it out of the government, fine. I would say that religious person is a smart, bright person. However, many religious people want religion to be apart of our government and I, as well as the Supreme Court, disagree with that.

Something to look at Decka:

That does nothing to disprove what i said in the first place... that most big cities are democrat while the entire rest of the state is republican... at least in Ohio's case. I mean, why else would cleveland be so DOMINANTLY blue while everything else is red? I bet you think its all the "smart educated" students at Cleveland State University... but that would be very much wrong because that age group barely even votes. We KNOW why its blue.. and i already told you why...

As to the second part, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If 51 Republicans vote yes and 49 Democrats vote no, it still passes.
I am talking about the current situation. If anything wants to get accomplished (since the Democrats control Congress) everyone has to compromise. The Republicans can't out-vote the Democrats anymore, which is the point I was trying to get across.

----------

You're such a fool, Overdose.
Thanks

What portion of the population do you think the "republican" south represents? Even if you were talking about the holdouts in Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky AND Tennessee, you'd STILL wind up with fewer votes than you would with Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles alone. Check out a population density map sometime, and then proceed to tell me how we (as a country) vote.
I’m not clear as to what you are trying to point out. The urban areas tend to vote with the Democrats and the rural areas tend to vote with the Republicans. This occurs in every single state. It just so happens that some states have extremely large urban areas, whith huge populations, that push the Democrats to victory.


----------

You might as well have.. you said that people down south are uneducated and vote for religious reasons...
I said that many are un-educated and vote for religious reasons. Why do you think they call it the Bible belt?

You sound like an egotistical bigot...
Thanks.

I just heard it on the radio.. we beat out Detroit for the most depressed city in the US of A... yay.
That’s a valid source.

I think you over-exaggerate the religious aspect down south just because you can't explain why they keep voting republican... and then you label them a bunch of poor un-educated people.. way to go.
The south voted for the Democrats (because of Lincoln freeing the slaves) and they did this up until about the time the Democrats pushed the civil rights movement. Now they always vote Republican. Maybe that’s yet another explanation? Freethinker (although I know you doubt his perspective) says that racist views are rampant in the South. So obviously that still plays an issue in a lot of their minds.

That does nothing to disprove what i said in the first place... that most big cities are democrat while the entire rest of the state is republican... at least in Ohio's case. I mean, why else would cleveland be so DOMINANTLY blue while everything else is red? I bet you think its all the "smart educated" students at Cleveland State University... but that would be very much wrong because that age group barely even votes. We KNOW why its blue.. and i already told you why...
Yes, it does disprove what you said. You said that poor people vote for Democrats. However the states with the highest percent of poor people voted for the Republicans. Obviously they vote on reasons other then handouts, such as god, guns and gays. ;)

I think OD is on to something here,un educated good old boys, probably not,but just because ya have an education, dosent mean ya have common sense, most of the worlds most brilliant minds are real dickheads in real life, and it makes sense that if you keep voting for the same party repeatedly, whether their good or bad, means your just another one of the sheep on polling day.

As the country grows and becomes more diverse the "bible belt" is fading out quickly. The same goes for the overlydramatic stereotypical view of the uneducated southerner. There is no shortage of highly educated folks down this way.

To be honest, I think there are people who are liberal-republicans and conservative-democrats. Those are the people, the fence sitters, who sway elections. And I don't think they took that into consideration. They just gave 2 options, liberal and conservative. But the people who are kind of a mixture of both were FORCED to pick one side or the other. And I don't think most Americans are one side or the other.
It all comes down to what they believe they are. If you had to make them choose based on economic issues alone or social issues alone or other issues alone, we'd obviously have different results. But the results stand to mention that conservatives are overpopulating the country despite Dop's "predictions."
Look at the towns in the south. Are they really religious? Yes. Are they fairly un-educated? Yes. Who do they vote for? The Republicans. The South has some of the most un-educated population! And they vote for Republicans ALWAYS.
That's not true. There are Southern democrats in cities and big towns across the South.
Poor people vote Democrat? No.
Really? Then why are poverty pimps in office in Metropolitan USA?

Whether poor people vote Republican or Democrat really has more to do with their religion and/or the color of their skin.

Oh, and my mom, who is unarguably poor, makes Freethinker look like a Rightwinger. ;)

It But the results stand to mention that conservatives are overpopulating the country despite Dop's "predictions."
Children/teenagers today have so many resources at their fingertips that we are much more likely to not believe something just because our parents say it is true.

Since the age of the internet kids are forming their own opinions and questioning their parents in the process due to having facts and figures at their fingertips. After a few generations I wouldn't be surprised if this poll was proven incorrect and or not as drastic.

That's not true. There are Southern democrats in cities and big towns across the South.
Evakian, obviously I was speaking in general terms. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule of thumb. However, the poor states voted for Bush and the rich states voted for Kerry. Period.

Really? Then why are poverty pimps in office in Metropolitan USA?
Semantics. Obviously some poor people vote for the Democrats. But as a whole they don't. That's all I've been trying to convey. Stop trying to nit-pick this entire situation.

... Stop trying to nit-pick this entire situation.

So sez the self appointed chair of the royal nitpicking society.

Children/teenagers today have so many resources at their fingertips that we are much more likely to not believe something just because our parents say it is true.

Since the age of the internet kids are forming their own opinions and questioning their parents in the process due to having facts and figures at their fingertips. After a few generations I wouldn't be surprised if this poll was proven incorrect and or not as drastic.
That's a good point. I don't have the political views of my parents, and that is largely due to mass electronic media.
Evakian, obviously I was speaking in general terms. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule of thumb.
You don't speak in general terms when you declare absolutes like "they vote republican ALWAYS."
However, the poor states voted for Bush and the rich states voted for Kerry. Period.
The rich states are more urbanized and therefore have greater wealth disparities, tell me again how the poor don't vote Democrat?
Stop trying to nit-pick this entire situation.
Stop telling people how and what they should debate over. I'm attacking your points in the way I see fit. Your only response is "Well, gee, I wasn't speaking in absolute terms even though I use terms that make it sound as such, gawrsh."

You don't speak in general terms when you declare absolutes like "they vote republican ALWAYS."
OK. I will try and not speak in general terms if it makes you feel better. Most poor people vote Republican. Happy?

The rich states are more urbanized and therefore have greater wealth disparities, tell me again how the poor don't vote Democrat?
State's with the poorest people voted for Bush. And a lot of the poorest states are in the South. Obviously the poor tended to vote for George Bush.

According to recent US census figures, since President Bush assumed power in 2000 poverty has risen by 7%, the proportion of those without healthcare has risen by 9%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. But where the poor are most numerous, it seems the Democrats are weakest. The 10 states with the lowest household median income, where people are least likely to have healthcare and most likely to live in poverty, all voted Republican in 2004. Not only are they poor, but they're getting poorer.The five states with the steepest falls in income backed Bush.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0918-21.htm


Stop telling people how and what they should debate over. I'm attacking your points in the way I see fit. Your only response is "Well, gee, I wasn't speaking in absolute terms even though I use terms that make it sound as such, gawrsh."
You are attacking the way I phrased my points for the most part.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that all the "educated" people vote democrat .. that's a farse if i ever read one.
I rest my case.

What portion of the population do you think the "republican" south represents? Even if you were talking about the holdouts in Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky AND Tennessee, you'd STILL wind up with fewer votes than you would with Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles alone. Check out a population density map sometime, and then proceed to tell me how we (as a country) vote.How we as a country votes doesn't matter; if it did Gore would have won in 2000. It's how the Electoral College votes that picks who goes to the White House - and that favors all the cud-suckin' yokels from Hooterville.

State's with the poorest people voted for Bush. And a lot of the poorest states are in the South. Obviously the poor tended to vote for George Bush.
The "poor" (I use that term ever lightly when referring to those living America) are still a minority, just because their state votes Republican doesn't mean the poor do. Correlation does not imply causation.

"Correlation does not imply causation."

That is such a good sentence.

1.The Negotiation
2.Multi-lateral Negotiation
3.Uni-lateral Negotiation
4.Aggressive Negotiation
5.Partisan Negotiation
6.Guerilla Negotiation
7.Furious Negotiation
8.HEY! You better listen to us or we're going to get the U.N. to call you bad names!
9.We're going to pee really, really hard!
10.We can't “rush” into things like sanctions, or miliatry strikes.
Therefore Darth, you FULLY AGREED with Clinton when he ordered air strikes against the evil TYRANT Milosovich in Serbia in 1999.. Interesting, because most Republican Senators at the time DID NOT. Read Oren Hatch's comments at the time for some real laughs. I can imagine how fully incensed you must have been by the FAILURE of the GOP to advocate decisive action in a just war against a genocidal tyrant.

The "poor" (I use that term ever lightly when referring to those living America) are still a minority, just because their state votes Republican doesn't mean the poor do. Correlation does not imply causation.
All of the 10 lowest median income states voted Republican in 2004. That is an extreme correlation.

The reason states like Oregon did not vote Republican in 2004 is because our urban (richer) districts voted Democrat and were filled with far moe people inside of those districts then inside the rural (poor) Republican districts in Eastern Oregon.

Didn't the big cities in Texas typically vote Democrat?

The Democrat agenda.........

Does it involve building house-sized sculptures of dead insects and living in them?

All of the 10 lowest median income states voted Republican in 2004. That is an extreme correlation.
Yeah, and? That doesn't prove that poor people voted Republican, it just means the majority of their state and localities voted Republican. The minorities aren't always heard.

But, I already said this.
Didn't the big cities in Texas typically vote Democrat?
Yes indeed. 10 of the Democrats in the House are from Texas.

poor people vote democrat, because they want the handoutsAnd what do you call hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts thrown exclusively at the wealthiest 1% of wage-earners in America? Urban renewal?

Yeah, and? That doesn't prove that poor people voted Republican, it just means the majority of their state and localities voted Republican. The minorities aren't always heard.
The low-income districts in Oregon voted Republican. The high-income districts in Oregon voted Democrat. However, the high-income districs in Oregon had more people because we have larger cities and urban areas. But in the south the urban areas aren't as big, which allows the rural-low-income districs to have more sway in elections.

Yes indeed.
Would you say that urban areas are typically more educated and rich? Because if the cities in your state voted Democrat obviously that is widespread across the United States. Do you really want me to go district by district in the South to prove my point?

Do you really want me to go district by district in the South to prove my point?
Yes, make my day.

By all means... go district by district and state by state, in alphabetical order, with voting results sorted by race, religion, annual income, and sexual preference.

It amazes me how out of touch OD is... how he doesnt see that poor people in the inner-cities are the main attraction to the democratic party.

poor people down south may vote republican, but poor people in inner cities vote democrat.. no doubt about it. Undeniable.

OK. I will try and not speak in general terms if it makes you feel better. Most poor people vote Republican. Happy?

That statement is very flawed... quit spreading crap

And what do you call hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts thrown exclusively at the wealthiest 1% of wage-earners in America? Urban renewal?

I call it two things

A. trying to reboost the economy to make people with money feel safe spending it

B. Something that has nothing to do with this conversation.

How we as a country votes doesn't matter; if it did Gore would have won in 2000. It's how the Electoral College votes that picks who goes to the White House - and that favors all the cud-suckin' yokels from Hooterville.


Sorry, but I happen to be one of those "yokels". I'm just not fortunate enough to live in that paradise known as New Jersey. :rolleyes:

Is is not fair to say,urban dwellers are more liberal minded and would tend to swing more to the Demos,and immigrants would do likewise.

poor people down south may vote republican
I believe this was started about poor people in the South. So thank you.

I believe this was started about poor people in the South. So thank you.

no.. you just said "poor people" in general... thank YOU

Geez, leave this post alone for a while and look what happens! It's like trying to drink from a firehouse. I'll get a couple of the early posts and go from there, dammit.

That conflict has been going on for a long time now. The world doesn't really care what happens there - least of all the US. If the greatest military power really wanted an intervention to stop the genocide, the US with republicans at the wheel has had several years to stop the Janjaweed, who would be no match for 100.000 heavily armed marines. But there is no oil in Sudan, there is nothing of interest, therefore there will never be a western armed intervention, only the creation of discussiongroups and political pledges. Perhaps the african union can be persuaded to provide the manpower (and the body bags).....

Well gee, Elp, we've been carrying the water for the entire free world since the end of the Second World War. The U.S. has been in Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Grenada, Haiti, Kuwait, Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Afghanistan and in Iraq. It's an open secret that either the U.S. steps in and does some serious ass kicking or nothing gets done. Jeane Kirkpatrick detailed that in one of her articles back in the early 90s that oppressed people WANT the U.S. to step and get things solved, rather than the U.N. or the Euroweenies. What in the hell are you Euroweenies doing to help? I'd love to have our troops go into Rwanda and walk all over those who are doing the killing, but we're a bit tied up right now in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that's another theater where most of the Euroweenies sit and quibble and just won't see that the Iraq war is THE central front in the war on terror, dammit.


Oh, I see Darth is privy to the Democrat timetable...sorry, could not resist!

No, AMERICAN, what I'm privy to is being aware of the political landscape since I was in the second grade and Reagan was about to squash Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Presidential Election. I've seen the Democrats in actions and what they do, I've seen Democrat Presidential candidates promise to raise our taxes once they get into Office, I've seen "secret plans" for dealing with Iraq, I've seen promises to reduce taxes and "end welfare as we know it," right up to the part where he got elected then the idea of reducing taxes or ending welfare were promptly forgotten, dammit. I've seen them sniveling on how the Soviet Union was going to be a fact of life forever and it's best to negotiate with them and not get them mad. I've got enough experience with those Democrat idiots to know where they're going and what they're going to do and if our REPUBLICAN Congress had been doing the job they were supposed to be doing, the Democrats would've lost big yet again, dammit.

Anyway, read the post and it is typical of the rightwing. Anti environment, anti world community really an anti humanity agenda.
Really, Darth move beside a nuclear power plant, under the wires and allow your front yard to be a toxic waste dump. That would create jobs, studing the immediate areas environmental effects on you, to be paid out of your pocket, be happy then?

Environmentalism should've never been used a tool against capitalism, dammit. The entire premise that the U.S. can't meet its energy needs cleanly is just so much trash, dammit.

More than likely, the trash heap of history can begin clearing a spot for the republican party ... right next to the WHIG's would be nice.

Dop, you better get down on your knees and pray that the Repubicans don't go and open the book of Reagan or it WILL BE the Democrats who will be on the trash heap of history, right along with Karl Marx, dammit.

Well gee, Elp, we've been carrying the water for the entire free world since the end of the Second World War. The U.S. has been in Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Grenada, Haiti, Kuwait, Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Afghanistan and in Iraq.


Well gee Darth, you sure know how to patronize people.
All of these military actions (except perhaps Somalia) were for your own advantage - political or economical. Not humanitarian.


It's an open secret that either the U.S. steps in and does some serious ass kicking or nothing gets done. Jeane Kirkpatrick detailed that in one of her articles back in the early 90s that oppressed people WANT the U.S. to step and get things solved, rather than the U.N. or the Euroweenies.
What in the hell are you Euroweenies doing to help?

The "euroweenies" as you so colorfully put it, has in general terms the same agenda as the US. No interest in Dafur, therefore no military intervention.


I'd love to have our troops go into Rwanda and walk all over those who are doing the killing, but we're a bit tied up right now in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that's another theater where most of the Euroweenies sit and quibble and just won't see that the Iraq war is THE central front in the war on terror, dammit.

It eludes me why you'd crush Rwanda, when we are talking about Dafur. And what you think doesn't really matter, because even though there were troops freed up, the US would never intervene in Dafur, for reasons I already stated. If Iraq is indeed the central front on the so-called "war on terror" can be debated, but one thing is certain: you created this hellish situation all by yourselves - well done.

Now, your reply was really just a long speech of the US pulling the load, and of why the cowards(?) on the side doesn't help. I humored you by replying, but this was still way off my point, which I shall repeat: no western (US with reps/dems or european) armed intervention in Dafur, because of lack of interests there. Period.

Ha ha ha!!

elp puts the squelch on Darth!

Well done, sir.

Oh, and my mom, who is unarguably poor, makes Freethinker look like a Rightwinger. ;)
Impossible.

All of these military actions (except perhaps Somalia) were for your own advantage - political or economical. Not humanitarian.



The "euroweenies" as you so colorfully put it, has in general terms the same agenda as the US. No interest in Dafur, therefore no military intervention.
Agreed on both points, but there's a problem with your observation: in Europe, when we do things for OUR benefit, we're perceived as selfish and self-serving. In Europe, when you do things that are unquestionably for YOUR benefit (be it politically or economically), no one admits it (read; food for oil, trading with Saddam, selling arms, etc). The implication is very clear from your side of the pond: we're covetous, and you're not (and nor is anyone else, for that matter). Actually, you basically say it all the time: America is evil (and you say it in no uncertian terms, at that). Come to think of it, I'm starting to regret our involvement in the second world war.

I'm serious, Prae. My mom is just about the most liberal person ever. When she's not drunk or stoned, all she can talk about is how Bush is the Devil and he planned 9/11 and the U.S. is not turning into a police state, but that it is one already. Although I heard she actually might get a job for once so maybe that will occupy her enough to stop sending me so many stupid emails about fraudulent elections and whatnot.

I just realized that sounded so harsh... She's not really as bad as I make it sound, but I'm feeling quite resentful of her lately.

but I'm feeling quite resentful of her lately.
I think I understand why...:eek:

Not because she's a liberal... Because of lots of past events, my own mistakes for which she was perhaps partially to blame...

And what do you call hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts thrown exclusively at the wealthiest 1% of wage-earners in America? Urban renewal?

Giving them their money back?

Would you say that urban areas are typically more educated and rich? Because if the cities in your state voted Democrat obviously that is widespread across the United States. Do you really want me to go district by district in the South to prove my point?

What are you calling an urban area? Take Cincinnati for instance. The urban core of the city votes Democrat. The surrounding doughnut of suburbs votes Republican. The urban area as a whole goes Republican.

I have no doubt that the high income people living in the cities themselves vote Democrat, because frankly most people that like living in downtowns and urban renewal areas are liberal. The rich and educated in the suburbs tend to be Republican.

Agreed on both points, but there's a problem with your observation: in Europe, when we do things for OUR benefit, we're perceived as selfish and self-serving. In Europe, when you do things that are unquestionably for YOUR benefit (be it politically or economically), no one admits it (read; food for oil, trading with Saddam, selling arms, etc).
The implication is very clear from your side of the pond: we're covetous, and you're not (and nor is anyone else, for that matter). The message is quite bold, actually - America is evil. That's all we hear from you people.

I'm in total agreement with Europe also being very selfish. Every nation always act in its own best interest. And every nation views it's own policies as righteous. America is not considered evil, but agressive - huge difference there. When America chooses to bomb away to pave the way for new ways to maintain power and make some cash, europe chooses the more subtle way that is surely also damaging (take the EU agricultural support program for instance, oil-for-food etc.) but not as violent - or at least, with no direct violence.

Come to think of it, I'm starting to regret our involvement in the second world war.

How sad. Not because you regret it, but because I suspect you regret it for the wrong reasons - "ungratefulness"? I think that is a bit childish. Have you considered world economy and stability in the second half of the 20th century, in case the US didn't intervene? Don't let such petty things cloud your judgement.

Impossible.
He's not a commie, so sure, it's possible.

How sad. Not because you regret it, but because I suspect you regret it for the wrong reasons - "ungratefulness"? I think that is a bit childish. Have you considered world economy and stability in the second half of the 20th century, in case the US didn't intervene? Don't let such petty things cloud your judgement.
Ouch - you kind of shut me up with that. :(

You're right, and trust me, I said that out of anger; I don't regret anything about WW2 other than allowing the Soviets to take more territory than they had a right to. The iron curtain fucked everything up.

American military shortfalls:

George Patton should have taken Berlin and pushed the Russians all the way back to their borders, even if it meant using the then defeated German army to do so at the end of WWII. Result? Probably no cold war.

Truman should have let Douglas Mac Arthur have his way during the Korean conflict. Had Patton done what he wanted to, there's a good chance Korea never would have happened, however Mac would have taken the Chinese out of it.

Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf should have brought the Iraqi Idiot's scrotum back on a platter at the end of Gulf War I. There'd be no troops in Iraq today (most likely) and 9/11 probably would not have occured.

American military shortfalls:
George Patton should have taken Berlin and pushed the Russians all the way back to their borders, even if it meant using the then defeated German army to do so at the end of WWII. Result? Probably no cold war.
Instead we'd have a long, "hot war" with the Soviets, and would have hacked off our limbs to afford the venture.
Truman should have let Douglas Mac Arthur have his way during the Korean conflict. Had Patton done what he wanted to, there's a good chance Korea never would have happened, however Mac would have taken the Chinese out of it.
China would still have gone red if the Cold War didn't happen. Their turn was in the makings during WW2 anyway. If MacArthur had his way, parts of North Korea and Manchuria would be nuclear wasteland.
Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf should have brought the Iraqi Idiot's scrotum back on a platter at the end of Gulf War I. There'd be no troops in Iraq today (most likely) and 9/11 probably would not have occured.
9/11 happened for a variety of reasons, and aren't directly tied to Hussein or his regime. Besides, I doubt it was Schwarzkopf's decision to not take out Hussein.

Had the U.S. military engaged the Russians at that time, there would have been little contest.

Nukes were still brand new in those days, so perhaps you're right, but would that have necessarily been a bad thing?

Taking out Hussein in '91 would have given those wishing to do us harm from that reason considerable pause. Were they to attack the West, it most likely would not have happend on U.S. soil.

Those Generals all followed the orders of the civilians they worked for. The shortcomings belong to the politicans, as usual.

The shortcomings belong to the politicans, as usual.

:thumbs:

Truman should have let Douglas Mac Arthur have his way during the Korean conflict. Had Patton done what he wanted to, there's a good chance Korea never would have happened, however Mac would have taken the Chinese out of it.
I couldn't agree with you more on that point. Actually, on your first point to.

Is is not fair to say,urban dwellers are more liberal minded and would tend to swing more to the Demos,and immigrants would do likewise.

True, what the urban dwellers and immigrants (especially the illegal ones) are looking for is more in the way of handouts. They really don't care who's running the show as long as their "god given" entitlements aren't messed with in any way. The illegals are looking for that sympathetic liberal's ear (and the conservative's wallet) to exonerate them from their first crime in the U.S. - that being to cross the border without permission. Once they have that, the entitlements are sure to come.

I have nothing against illegal immigrants... Who else would keep prices down by doing sucky jobs for slave wages?

I have nothing against illegal immigrants... Who else would keep prices down by doing sucky jobs for slave wages?
You should think about that. What happens when these people are given amnesty? At that point, they're no longer considered "illegal", thus we'll have 20 million ADDITIONAL bottom-feeders looking for a "fair" wage to wash your car, cut your lawn, or remove your trash. There's no formal education there - no contribution to society (so to speak) - and it results in nothing but headaches for everyone. These people reproduce on par with your average rabbit, and who (inevitably) winds up footing the bill for this shit - we all do. Why? So we (as a country) can pay to have signs put up in Spanish because they refuse to learn English? So we can lose our culture, because culture (or the concept of it) is anathema to your average liberal or Mexican? Look, DF - these people aren't here for our benefit - they're here for theirs. Cheap labor is a short-term benefit, and it WILL be outweighed in 15 to 20 years with severe consequences for our casual acceptance of this MAJOR problem.