November 23, 2011
— Gabriel Malor If you're looking for last-minute ideas, there are some outstanding-sounding recipes in the Annual Thanksgiving Recipe exchange. Ya done good, morons.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:51 AM
| Comments (144)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Imam Butterball at November 23, 2011 02:54 AM (KI/Ch)
On F&F this morning their man Dick Morris said Newt Gingrich won despite his call for limited amnesty for illegals and that Cain lost badly with his call to end importing oil from Syria because we get no oil from Syria and they do ot export any to begin with. I didn’t watch the debates. Morris said they pushed Ron Paul and downplayed Romney. Said Romney went for half an hour with no questions. The question there is “did the MFM attack Romney for “sleeping”? Of course not.
F&F played up Newt throwing out red meat on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think it is too late. Obama has killed it and it is time to get out, not escalate.
Hard to say who won if you didn’t watch it, but if Newt called for “limited amnesty” he is toast because despite all the bitching from his opponents Perry has NEVER supported any form of amnesty.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:55 AM (YdQQY)
“If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out,” he continued.
HeÂ’s toast with the base.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:55 AM (YdQQY)
Bachmann may have leaked classified information on PakistanÂ’s nuclear weapons during debate
Discussing the security threat posed to the United States by Pakistan, Bachmann said, “We have to recognize that 15 of the sites, nuclear sites are available or are potentially penetrable by jihadists. Six attempts have already been made on nuclear sites.”
I think much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:55 AM (YdQQY)
OWS plans to "occupy" businesses on Black Friday
This is the opening of the major retail season. Merchants will not sit idly by for this.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:56 AM (YdQQY)
Not satisfied with killing the Supershittycommittee Senate Dems ready to launch 400B in new spending
After failing to reach a deal to reduce the deficit, the Senate will move next month to take up legislation that could add more than $400 billion to the deficit.
So they can live with any budget. But really this is just more election year politics but nobody will call it that. Especially not The Hill.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:57 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: mugiwara at November 23, 2011 02:57 AM (KI/Ch)
After months of uncertainty, Mitt Romney has decided to roll the dice and go for a win in the Iowa caucuses.
I think he has waited too late. And here they says he thinks he can do it without SoCons. I think Iowa is now a toss-up State. There is no telling which way they are going to go with those caucuses.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:57 AM (YdQQY)
Actually, it says a third were. The other two-thirds were caused by good ol' fashioned Americans.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2011 02:58 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:59 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: mugiwara at November 23, 2011 06:57 AM (KI/Ch)
This is not what the news is reporting. Fox who has been "pro-amnesty" in the past is calling it limited amnesty.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:01 AM (YdQQY)
It's over folks. John Thune has endorsed Mittens. He's got it in the bag now.
John freakin Thune!
Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 23, 2011 03:03 AM (dV45O)
Posted by: mugiwara at November 23, 2011 03:03 AM (KI/Ch)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 23, 2011 03:04 AM (dV45O)
OWS plans to "occupy" businesses on Black Friday
This is the opening of the major retail season. Merchants will not sit idly by for this.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 06:56 AM (YdQQY)
That ought to ingratiate them with the public at large.
Posted by: Darth Randall at November 23, 2011 03:04 AM (O/onO)
Posted by: billygoat at November 23, 2011 03:04 AM (smit2)
Hard to say who won if you didn’t watch it, but if Newt called for “limited amnesty” he is toast because despite all the bitching from his opponents Perry has NEVER supported any form of amnesty.
That was going to be my first question this morning since I had band practice last night and haven't seen the debate yet.
Did Perry do well enough to gain any ground?
Oh, and good mornin', y'all.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 03:05 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:06 AM (YdQQY)
I didn't watch either so I can't say for sure. He didn't make nay big errors because none of the media is calling it out. What you will see is the Romneybots will say Romney won, the Grinchers will say Newt won,the Perrybots will say Perry won, and the Paulbots will sit in a corner and smoke dope.
As I said months ago. It is time to get rid of these worthless debates.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:09 AM (YdQQY)
Happy thanksgiving. haven't seen you on here for a while.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:10 AM (YdQQY)
Yeah, shouldn't have said 'all". major gaffe, I would do bad in debates.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:11 AM (YdQQY)
It is time to get rid of these worthless debates.
Yeah, I haven't heard a truly substantive question or answer yet. How can you give a coherent response in 30 seconds or less to a complex issue?
However, if you have sound guiding principles, it should be easy to lay them out in that time.
And wasn't this the debate that was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 03:12 AM (d0Tfm)
Yeah but moderated by CNN.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:13 AM (YdQQY)
Yeah but moderated by CNN.
Hmm, I wonder why that is. How come Brit Hume can't moderate one of these? Baier did a reasonably good job. I mean, I understand the alleged "fairness" thingy, but reality must intrude at some point. Hell, even I'd give it a crack, I have some questions of my own.
And did everybody see Perry on the Fox Middle Seat the other night? IMO, Rick missed a golden opportunity to set JW straight on the illegal immigration issue and missed it. JW deliberately confused legal and illegal immigrants in his question, as most lefties purposely do and I so wanted to hear Perry say something like, "Juan, you're question demonstrates your apparent confusion of who is here legally and who isn't. I'm not anti-immigrant, as you suggest, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. We are the only country in the world that refuses to enforce its immigration laws."
Or words to that effect.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 03:22 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: lowandslow at November 23, 2011 03:23 AM (GZitp)
Most of these candidates (in fact all but Newt) or hesitant to take the press on directly. They are still going by the old adage that you do not get into a war of words with a group that buys ink by the barrel.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:27 AM (YdQQY)
BTW, the babe on Fox from Townhall was Katie Pavlich. She didn’t look like she was old enough to know very much about politics, but she is their “news editor”.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:30 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Negotiation 101 at November 23, 2011 03:31 AM (ajqnu)
He did indeed distinguish between amnesty defined as citizenship and benefits, and letting long-term illegals (he used 25 years as an example) with a record of employment, taxpaying, kids and grandkids born here, and community ties such as a church (watch lib heads explode over that one) stay in the country. His argument was that we weren't sending them home under any circumstances. Folks here for an undefined shorter time would be sent home by unspecified means.
Mitt and Perry both went with the crowd pleasing "close the border" speech, but Mitt wouldn't answer a specific question about how he would deal with the 25-year folks, babbling something about not drawing lines in the debate. Not one of his better answers.
I thought Newt's answer was thoughtful and original, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. If only he was also an administrator.....
Posted by: pep at November 23, 2011 03:33 AM (YXmuI)
Given current trends, this will have to be modified to "buys ink by the thimble".
Posted by: pep at November 23, 2011 03:36 AM (YXmuI)
On immigration, even though I am heartless, I think Perry would probably actually do something, while all the others would feel the illegal immigrant's pain and produce de facto amnesty under cover of darkness.
My respect for Heritage and AEI diminished during the course of the evening.
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 23, 2011 03:37 AM (i3+c5)
They are still going by the old adage that you do not get into a war of words with a group that buys ink by the barrel.
In this age of not-so-subtle-anymore bias (see Journolist), it's about time to abandon that. If you have truth on your side, you can confront the press, but you'd have to do it gently, at least at first. With all the alternative ways we have now of getting and receiving information, Big Print no longer has a monopoly on the news, as their declining revenue numbers confirm. The playing field is more level today than in my memory, yet no one but Neut seems willing to take advantage of it.
OK, 'rons 'n 'ettes, I'm off to the salt mine. Getting up a O Dark Thirty tomorrow to smoke a turkey. I want to wish all of you a very Happy Thanksgiving. May your day be filled with the finest of family, friends, food, football, and most of all, Thanks to the Big Guy.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 03:37 AM (d0Tfm)
Michael Moore?
Posted by: pep at November 23, 2011 03:38 AM (YXmuI)
Bachmann may have leaked classified information on PakistanÂ’s nuclear weapons during debate
Discussing the security threat posed to the United States by Pakistan, Bachmann said, “We have to recognize that 15 of the sites, nuclear sites are available or are potentially penetrable by jihadists. Six attempts have already been made on nuclear sites
Impossible to tell whether this is actual classified info, Bachmann making shit up, or both
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 03:40 AM (I2LwF)
I think our candidates have to stop worrying about how much ink or how many pixels the press buys, intelligent confrontation on basic principles may be the only way any conservative ideas get exposed to those that still consider network/establishment news sources as valid.
I did notice that a lot of the answers last night started with references to Obama failures. I was waiting for Perry to call him out as a SCoaMF.
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 23, 2011 03:43 AM (i3+c5)
Oh, shocka!
The Newt and The Mutt have been the go-to dudes for the entrenched, fatcat conservative punditry since the git-go. They have the looks, the "gravitas," the accents and the proper insider's view of politics to satisfy the Sons of Bill Buckley.
For all his shilling for T-Paw and the occasional nod to that real conservative, Rick Santorum, Poppin' Fresh has been bangin' the drums for the solid D.C. guys as well. It's all about policy and optics with that crowd; substance and accomplishment definitely secondary.
It would do Lowry and his ilk a world of good to actually get out of their bubble once in a while and see what the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure has actually done to the country. Then they might contemplate how little The Newt and The Mutt would do to dismantle to political structure that has aided and abetted Osama Obama.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 23, 2011 03:44 AM (HkOAc)
Good God. Now half of Republicans who supported Newt a week ago have completley written him off. He said that he would deport "millions of illegal aliens." Do they really believe that Mitt is going to forcably dpeort more than "millions?" That he is going to deport up to 10% of the US population. Please. Bachman will? Santorum? Hell no.
Just like with Perry, since Newt isn't 100% conservative we have to vote for the 20% conservative. Thanks, Michelle Malkin, et al.
Instead of looking just at what Newt said, I like to compare the answers. Newt said he would deport millions of illegal aliens. Mitt, the consumate panderer, would not committ to any, not to deporting a single illegal gangbanging rapist murdering illegal. Not one fucking illegal. But DOWN WITH NEWT!
I swear to God I think some Republican purists are as stupid as Obama voters.
Posted by: Levi at November 23, 2011 03:48 AM (bQiFu)
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:49 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 23, 2011 03:54 AM (vzFJV)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 03:56 AM (dVBif)
And it starts, what we're to stupid to understand what Newt said? He claims people that are breaking the law everyday they're here are law abiding citizens and should be allowed to stay on the decision of some local board. Because we all know that a board from San Diego and Bismark will use the same standards. The whole fucking idea was idiotic and Newt will continue to think it's a stroke of brilliance.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 23, 2011 03:57 AM (GZitp)
The more I look at Fox's list of "political commentators/consultants", the more I become convinced that Murdoch is senile, and Ailes is a not-so-closeted liberal idiot.
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 23, 2011 03:57 AM (i3+c5)
Many of us have pointed out Romney being on record supporting the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill and the fact that he is liberal on just about every category that conservatives are concerned with.
Newt is not much better than Romney on these same issues and he also has a LOT of personal baggage that gives him a reputation as untrustworthy.
This has NOTHING to do with "purism". Someone interested in a "conservative pure" candidate would be pushing Bachmann, Ron Paul, or Santorum. Those three are ALL more conservative than Perry or any of the other candidates.
The only purists I have seen on these threads are the ones who want a pure liberal like Romney.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 03:58 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 03:59 AM (KwX0v)
Posted by: mikey hates everything not shaped like a hockey stick, mann! at November 23, 2011 03:59 AM (4I7lI)
Well he didn't start crying and collapse into a fetal position which would have been an improvement over his smirk every time someone ridiculed him.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 23, 2011 03:59 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 23, 2011 03:59 AM (vsYnu)
From what I can tell from Fox TV he was his normal nutbag self on foreign policy. If it wasn't for that, and also maybe the drug thing, he would probably be at the head of the pack.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:00 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 04:00 AM (Ba6aP)
I swear to God I think some Republican purists are as stupid as Obama voters.
Posted by: Levi at November 23, 2011 07:48 AMAnd some of us put The Newt third or fourth on our lists, and he stays there.
I've never understood the Newt-love among conservatives. For every halfway decent move (the Contract With America, yadda yadda), Gingrich has made some colossal blunders toward liberalism. The Great Conservative Thinker and Historian has supposedly walked some of his gaffes back, but he keeps veering down the road so heavily traveled by the inbred goons who populate D.C.
IMO, a "purist" would look at the candidates and start packing for some lonely desert island, knowing the country can't take four more years of SCoaMF, which is what we'd get if The Newt or The Mutt is the opponent.
Me, I'm supporting Perry. He has a record of accomplishment with very few blemishes on it. He's not a creature of the Beltway. And as far as I can tell, he's not a bloated gasbag who sits on his ever-broadening butt raking in the loot from donors, corrupt government agencies and lobbyists.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 23, 2011 04:00 AM (HkOAc)
http://tinyurl.com/7467q68
It looks to me like the note says banksters, but the transcript has it as bankers. And I know it's petty but the other thing I noticed is dirt under the thumbnail.
Posted by: Retread at November 23, 2011 04:01 AM (ALZZ7)
http://goo.gl/ncUjB
Posted by: François Villon at November 23, 2011 04:02 AM (4GqIy)
Vic, I'm not talking about here. I'm talking mostly about Hot Air. They are burning Newt in effigey now and last night.
lowandslow: I'm not saying the people are too stupid to understand what Newt said. Not at all. Newt said exactly what he meant and we took it exactly right. Romney dodged. Those burying Newt right now are too willfully ignorant to realize what Romney did with his slick answer.
They are also deluding themselves if they say they don't want Romney and still think they have an alternate choice that isn't Perry or Gingrich.
What? Are they going to jump on the Bachman train with Glenn Beck?
Posted by: Levi at November 23, 2011 04:04 AM (bQiFu)
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 23, 2011 04:05 AM (gpoHq)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 23, 2011 07:59 AM (vsYnu)
As I said earlier, I think Iowa is up in the air. Normally I would expect Romney or Newt to do well there because Iowa is a fairly liberal State, but even though Romney donned his cornbrero he has mostly ignored them until now. And Newt has too much personal baggage.
I can see a 4-way tie coming out of Iowa caucuses now.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:05 AM (YdQQY)
Why not, he deserves it.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:06 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:08 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 04:09 AM (ZgBZU)
32 The Newt downfall begins. Why do I have a feeling Newt will compound his amnesty problem by scolding and lecturing everyone that doesn't understand his brilliance withing the next few days?
Not correct. His answer indicates that he is already running a Presidential campaign. Who on this panel is really going to take him to task for stating something obvious; that we have to aculturate illegals who are deeply rooted into the American fabric. If you think you can win an election promising to deport Grandpa and Grandma you're nuts. The way to handle this is (1) lock down the boarder to stem the tide, (2) deport recent arriving illegals at a cyclic rate, and (3) throw a bone to the established illegal community offering them a legal avenue for establishing citizenship via metrics of demonstrated merit. There are two other moves necessary to stem the systematic problem: (1) pass legislation making it illegal for any employer to knowingly use illegal labor: 3x the annual salary of the illegals employed would be the punishment, and (2) move the US foregin policy to force Mexico to open their economy to American investment: no more one way streets. The last two require winning the WH, Senate, and Congress. Just sayin.
Posted by: Sub-Tard Backhoe at November 23, 2011 04:09 AM (0M3AQ)
“If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out,” he continued.
HeÂ’s toast with the base.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 06:55 AM (YdQQY)
If Newt is correct, how do we justify jailing Bernie Madoff? He has kids and paid taxes for 25 years. The illegals were obviously NOT obeying the law for 25 years - they were, uh, illegal.
The point of enforcing immigration law is not to deport every one of them - it is to stop giving the benefits that attract them here. These people have been stealing our benefits for 25 years. Cut them out, and they will leave. Don't let them work - don't give them welfare. No need to deport them.
Sorry; I was close to supporting Newt (from default) - no more. Governor Perry has my vote at this point.
Posted by: Roger at November 23, 2011 04:11 AM (tAwhy)
I dunno - I might could be talked into abandoning all my principles if I could get a little face time with a rack like that.
Wake up to it every morning...
Whew.
Posted by: Sasha -N- Malia at November 23, 2011 04:11 AM (Bjf6P)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 04:12 AM (052zE)
The “On the Issues” site is not much good for this topic and it is not covered by the club for growth stuff. However, a Bing search (easily done) gives multiple hits for speeches and interviews (rhetoric) recently where he “reaches out” to Hispanics with reform ideas of immigration (sound familiar?). Basically he has gone squish/McCain on immigration while denying that it is amnesty (they all hate that label). Again this is rhetoric as immigration laws were not a hot topic when he was in congress. But with his rhetoric on the wrong side now it doesn’t matter.
So this is not the first time he has ventured out into this briar patch. Its just the most public one.Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:13 AM (YdQQY)
Why not, he deserves it.
Then so does Perry. Where does that leave us? Herm? I'll take Newt and Perry's immigration shortcomings without a second thought because those are the only options I see.
And I'm not immune to the problem of illegals either. Three people I know have been killed on the roads by them in seven years, I see the EBT cards en masse at Wal Mart almost daily and I hate it. I would love to deport a majority of them (not all), but even that a'int gonna happen.
Posted by: Levi at November 23, 2011 04:14 AM (bQiFu)
We get Adam Carolla and Jimmy Whats-his-name, from the Man Show, and the INS could hire them to sit down at the border crossing, and just before a chick was about to be deported, they could give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on whether she was hot enough to get a pardon.
Heck, we could even wire it to have audience participation, with viewers calling a special 900 number to register their votes.
Posted by: Sasha -N- Malia at November 23, 2011 04:15 AM (Bjf6P)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 23, 2011 04:15 AM (azHfB)
Posted by: ombdz at November 23, 2011 04:18 AM (2DpoY)
The fact that we can't deal effectively with the colonization of the US by illegal, unwanted migrants, people hostile to our fundamentally anglo-saxon culture, is reason enough to conclude that it's all over. We could win every election going forward for the next 10 years, and it will all be for nothing. That is because, collectively, we're a bunch of limp-wristed do-gooder saps. In post 68 Sub-Tard points out that we can't win by running on a platform that includes deporting granny Rosa and grampa Juan. Sadly I think he's right. This unwillingness to defend ourselves from being culturally overrun assures our eventual defeat, just as our unwillingness to get rid of the Muz vermin assures that in the end we're going to let those bastards kill off massive numbers of us. Apparently we're more worried about elderly long-term law breakers, and the 1 moderate Muz out of 10,000, than we are about future generations of real Americans.
It is our unwillingness to stand up for what is ours by right that will kill us. That is, those of us who don't die of shame first. We have the might and the know-how to wipe out anyone who even annoys us, let alone threatens us, and we refuse to use it except to the extend that we can delay our eventual defeat for just a bit longer. How can any red blooded American ponder this truth and not be sickened to the core?
Posted by: Reactionary at November 23, 2011 04:19 AM (xUM1Q)
That is the problem with proposals like this. By the time it made it through the Senate (as it stands now) between the communists and the RINOs like McCain it would be amnesty round IV all over again.
Perry had it right. Close the border and then we can talk about all the other problems. That was Reagan's downfall. He agreed to amnesty with the compromise that the border would be closed and there would be no more amnesty. Well, we got the amnesty and the rest of the law that was passed was never enforced.
Now, not only is the law not being enforced by the feds, but they will not even allow the States to try to enforce it. That while they are punishing the States with lawfare (see the post about Utah above). He keeps suing knowing that States have very few resources now for a protracted legal battle while he owns the DOJ.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:21 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Hrothgar
............
You fail to realize they are in a business.. not poplitics.
When people watch, they make money. When they don't, they go out of business.
They lost tons of money when they went full-on nutso with Beck. And, perhaps they have overreacted by going too far the other way.. but it's all business.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 23, 2011 04:21 AM (UTq/I)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 08:00 AM (Ba6aP)
Or the next Marco Rubio?
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 23, 2011 04:21 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 23, 2011 04:23 AM (UTq/I)
Yes Romney-II, post 2006 campaign doll has the illegals issue correct now.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:26 AM (YdQQY)
Let's stick to the known knowns... I am totally down with deporting the current Barry Soetoro
Posted by: No Whining at November 23, 2011 04:26 AM (4I7lI)
Posted by: Jean at November 23, 2011 04:31 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at November 23, 2011 04:31 AM (j5CHE)
Posted by: Fritz at November 23, 2011 04:33 AM (/ZZCn)
No one can agree on immigration. No wait, what they can agree on is that, across the board, they all don't seem to care that immigration laws, already on the books don't need to be enforced.
The honest answer on immigration is that we need to think about it as a country. We need to have the best minds explore ways to fairly treat those already illegally here for x amount of years and those who waited x amount of years in their own country waiting their turn and coming to this country, legally and the right way. It is those people who are being thrown under the bus to pander to those who technically broke the law.
Posted by: blue bonnet at November 23, 2011 04:33 AM (oZfic)
I hope all this talk about Einstein and Rubio is snark.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:33 AM (YdQQY)
And that is one of the major reasons why these so-called debates are worthless.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:35 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Jean at November 23, 2011 04:36 AM (WkuV6)
Yes Romney-II, post 2006 campaign doll has the illegals issue correct now.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 08:26 AM (YdQQY)
Pretty much by default, he's bound to get something right. What he has wrong is his basic philosophy - by refusing to back away from O'RombaCare, he shows that he thinks government can solve problems better than the private sector can.
Unacceptable. Period.
Posted by: Roger at November 23, 2011 04:36 AM (tAwhy)
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 23, 2011 04:36 AM (gpoHq)
¡Snark on AoS, surely you jest, el Jefe!
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 23, 2011 08:36 AM (i3+c5)
Don't call him Shirley...
Posted by: No Whining at November 23, 2011 04:37 AM (4I7lI)
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:37 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Lincolntf at November 23, 2011 04:37 AM (Qjh0I)
90 The candidates on immigration are doing the same thing they do on every topic. They allow the dems and the left to craft the narrative in which they operate.
you are correct bluebonnet, however, the election will not turn on immigration, it will turn on the conservative issues of fiscal responsibility and economic growth and foreign policy catastrophes. Basically, strong economy - strong defense. As such, Newt is merely feeding mediabigots enough sweet apples to appease them and the broader voter. Perry and Newt are saying the same thing regarding immigration. Newt is merely putting an acceptably nice bow on his presentation. At this point is there anyone of the candidates to the right of Newt on this issue? Just askin.
Posted by: Sub-Tard Backhoe at November 23, 2011 04:38 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 23, 2011 04:39 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: Jean at November 23, 2011 04:40 AM (WkuV6)
It's not just NPR, all of the liberal media have their Egypt talking points and are determined NOT to talk about Syria. WTF?
Posted by: Bob Saget at November 23, 2011 04:42 AM (SDkq3)
No they are NOT. Perry's statement way back at one of the other debates was "yes they have a path to citizenship, its called get in line". In other words, legal immigration; not migration and then amnesty.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:43 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 08:37 AM (YdQQY)
If they play it back wards it has a happy ending
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at November 23, 2011 04:44 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at November 23, 2011 04:51 AM (3bJHs)
No they are NOT. Perry's statement way back at one of the other debates was "yes they have a path to citizenship, its called get in line". In other words, legal immigration; not migration and then amnesty.
Vic, don't you think Perry has learned by now that read meat conservative slogans are not selling all that well beyond the hardcore? How far did Perry get with his approach - as I recall he went from 25% to 7%. BTW your comparison quotes are not comparable. Did Perry ever state what he would do with illegal grandparents of two legal generations concerning immigration? No, he just threw out a slogan. He can't debate. His thoughts are unknowable because of his inability to tell us. You can't win a new majority using inside baseball slang. Just sayin.
Posted by: Sub-Tard Backhoe at November 23, 2011 04:52 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at November 23, 2011 04:52 AM (3bJHs)
There's the link.
Social spending is the root cause of our illegal immigration problem.
Exactly. There are indirect ways of getting them to leave (see Alabama.) The immigrant population is declining right now anyway. We need to take advantage of the economic situation and snatch those EBT cards and other benefits, all of them. That will be 1,000,000X better than loading up busses and boats and sending them all back. It will be cheaper than hiring people to do it for us, and it will save us the money we are throwing out hand over fist on these entitlements.
Sorry I got on here in a huff when I hardly ever post anyway (always read though). I just don't us deluding ourselves into thinking Romney is going to deport these people. It seems most of us have decided Romney is the last one we want, but we are still looking for any reason not to vote for anyone who challenges him.
Posted by: Levi at November 23, 2011 04:54 AM (bQiFu)
Posted by: Preznit Training Pants at November 23, 2011 04:56 AM (jucos)
Perry said that a long time ago. Not only that his record supports the statement.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 04:56 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Fritz at November 23, 2011 04:56 AM (/ZZCn)
Geologists: think energy production here in the US is a great idea, have a long term view of climate which means 50 years of data don't mean shit, and generally get laid more often than those damned worthless biologists.
Did I mention I don't like biologists?
Posted by: Pissed off geologist at November 23, 2011 04:58 AM (suUGi)
Nope, not Texas. Headed right into the belly of the beast, D.C.
Posted by: Lincolntf at November 23, 2011 04:59 AM (Qjh0I)
Perry said that a long time ago. Not only that his record supports the statement.
No it doesn't. He talks about border security being a Fed function. How many sanctuary cities are ther in Texas? I am pretty sure Austin is one. Did he ever wield his State power to curtail that behavior?
Posted by: Sub-Tard Backhoe at November 23, 2011 05:00 AM (0M3AQ)
I swore I would NEVER do that again. I told my parents after that in the future if I couldn't get off from work and make it down before Wed I would just not make it for Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 05:03 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Havedash at November 23, 2011 05:05 AM (JfvbF)
He pushed an anti-sanctuary bill hard and got it up to the final stages after calling them into a special session. They defeated it. He has no "State power" to prevent that.
He does not favor amnesty and never has. He has said on several occasions that they need to get in line and he has spent a lot of TX money trying to at least slow down the border crossing.
All that has been documented with links on here multiple times in the past.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 05:06 AM (YdQQY)
If you deported Alberto Einstein he would just figure out how to get back in.
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at November 23, 2011 08:31 AM (j5CHE)
Who needs Einstein? We already have nukes. Deport his ass.
Posted by: Reactionary at November 23, 2011 05:07 AM (xUM1Q)
Post Pawlenty, Michelle Bachman, prefaced her every disagreement with "with all due respect to"
Posted by: blue bonnet at November 23, 2011 05:07 AM (oZfic)
As usual, every thing is exactly opposite in effect as it's name.
Posted by: Jimmuy at November 23, 2011 05:17 AM (fzG4W)
Mitt Romney drops bombshell from his past
Via ABC News' Michael Falcone, who got his hands on an interview with Mitt Romney in a forthcoming issue of People magazine:
"I tasted a beer and tried a cigarette once, as a wayward teenager, and never did it again."
"Then I tried big government liberalism and I was hooked. Hooked hard, man."
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 23, 2011 05:19 AM (oBrVT)
I don't think I would call her an "airhead". What those "hunters" (and I use the term loosely) would be illegal in SC. You can not discharge a firearm in a residential area.
And I don't consider bushwhacking ducks at a backyard pier where the owners have likely been feeding them to be "hunting".
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 05:26 AM (YdQQY)
Still for Perry, and will until he drops out. Not that this thrills me, you understand, but as mediocre on the grand scale of American politics as he might be (and I don't think that he's that bad), he's still miles ahead of the rest of the moonbats, cranks, dullards, flip-floppers, big government lovers and affirmative action employment applicants who make up the rest of the GOP field.
re: illegal immigration...get control of the border and you can talk to people about fixing all the rest of it, and they'll listen. It's insulting bullshit at this stage, prior to closing the border, to talk about grandma and grandpa illegal immigrant and how you can't deport them. It's just as stupid and insulting to everyone who is here legally as Perry's heartless remark was. Newt just used a fancier semantic construction to insult us, is all.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 23, 2011 05:28 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: Lojack at November 23, 2011 05:31 AM (3DR8I)
Now that Newt is to the left of Perry and Romney is to the left and right of Perry . . . he'll probably stick with attacking Perry.
Posted by: Jimmuy at November 23, 2011 05:34 AM (fzG4W)
" He talks about border security being a Fed function."
Which it is. Perry has spent $400 million in State money to do what he can on the border since the TOTUS has thrown int he towel, which he never picked up, on the border.
Perry has stated as of last night he will use troops, drones, strategic fencing, and more border agent to secure the Mexican border in 12 months if elected.
Romney, eh, he will tell you what you want to hear. Depending on the wind's direction.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 23, 2011 05:34 AM (kaOJx)
__________
You know who else thought local boards should decide whether lawbreakers are sent to reeducation camps? That's right -- Stalin!
Posted by: Anachronda finds a loophole in Godwin's Law at November 23, 2011 05:36 AM (6fER6)
This is what I've been looking for: Iowans meeting to find out how to rally together and stop Mittens.
http://tinyurl.com/c2mhn9b
Posted by: Levi at November 23, 2011 05:37 AM (bQiFu)
Has the Air Force finished the anti-matter bomb they were working on?
Posted by: Bob Saget at November 23, 2011 05:45 AM (SDkq3)
I think she is the same gal that bought a home off the end of a major airport runway and then started complaining about the noise.
Posted by: Bob Saget at November 23, 2011 05:50 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: DangerGirl (all-in for Perry) at November 23, 2011 05:50 AM (j6ZlD)
Posted by: alexthedude at November 23, 2011 05:56 AM (0+B+X)
'Hope everyone has a great holiday and those of you who are traveling get from point A to point B without incident.
Posted by: Y-not at November 23, 2011 05:57 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: mike at November 23, 2011 05:58 AM (4GqIy)
From the news article, which granted may or may not be accurate, it sounds like they were shooting the ducks literally out from under the pier.
This woman may be a flake but I agree, this is not hunting. And in SC shooting that close to housing is illegal. You don't have to be shooting into the neighborhood, all you have to be is in the neighborhood shooting anywhere, including up in the air.
When I was big in hunting we used to call this bushwhacking and it was considered to be bad and looked down on.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 05:58 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Lojack at November 23, 2011 06:01 AM (3DR8I)
When we were first married we were far from both families and too poor to travel, so we never got into the habit of spending the holidays away from our home. All in all, we're pretty happy about that.
Posted by: Y-not at November 23, 2011 06:03 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Lojack at November 23, 2011 10:01 AM (3DR8I)
For the perks and the benefit package. It's the best "job" this miserable piece of crap will have his entire life, and he knows it.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 23, 2011 06:04 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: nanonu at November 23, 2011 07:10 AM (EcjQQ)
Here is the description:
This new terrorist threat, called the True Patriots, hopes to restore its interpretation of American values by beheading corporate America and overthrowing the government.
That isn't the TP. The TP has never supported destroying corporate America (like the Occupy crowd, who plans on disrupting holiday shopping on Friday), nor have they ever advocated overthrowing the government. They want to replace the lying, cheating, stealing thieves in the government.
Posted by: tinkerbella at November 23, 2011 12:40 PM (KLHYg)
Posted by: steevy at November 23, 2011 01:03 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Culo by Mazzucco ePub at November 23, 2011 04:35 PM (wUW/i)
Posted by: The Drop iBooks at November 23, 2011 05:20 PM (oZhf0)
Posted by: The Impossible Dead Audiobook at November 23, 2011 05:34 PM (sKGGa)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3167 seconds, 272 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Asshole Holder going after Utah now on Immigration
The Department of Justice and other agencies filed a complaint Tuesday in Salt Lake City that challenges Utah's immigration law, saying the state violates the U.S. Constitution due to its attempt to establish a state-specific immigration policy.
I had always thought Utah was pretty much open borders.
Posted by: Vic at November 23, 2011 02:54 AM (YdQQY)