JPF Home Page Forums Sarah Palin / I'm Hot for Teacher

I like how everyone continues to ignore all the falsehoods, lies, and contradictions in Palin's speech. Would you also cheer for a candidate that said the sky is green and 2+2=5? These are not complicated facts that are getting butchered and smeared, they're very simple.

Scott,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd much rather you make the case for him running the Harvard Law Review being enough to qualify than to be at the head of his party ticket where the handlers make the day to day decisions and do ALL the work.

I watched Obama today after he left his interview with Bill O'Reilly (which is a stroke of genius on his part to USE O'Reilly to work his way into the Fox News Coverage on McCain's acceptance night.. Bill will pussy foot around with him just like he did with Hilary in hopes of proving his left wing critics wrong... and it doesn't matter WHAT he does, they'll all still hate him but his ego is so overwhelming he still feels like he needs to try) and he made quite a valid point that the Republicans have attacked him and promoted themselves but answered no questions with specifics about what they are going to do. Of course I felt the same thing about the Democrats, but he's definitely right.. at least he did address some ideas (not specifics or how he would do them, but at least some ideas) and McCain needs to something similar.

McCain tonight will not likely do very well. His strength is doing town halls where the questions are open ended and unpredictable. That is Obama's one weakeness in public speaking and so he was strategically smart (and apparently had the upper hand enough to control it) to avoid those completely. Instead, there will be formal debates and Obama should be able to win those based on sheer rhetorical ability. McCain is at his weakest doing scripted speeches and compared to Palin who hit a Grand slam.. he'll be doing well to get a bunt single. Wouldn't it be ironic if it all came down to the Biden/Palin debate? I am not saying it should.. but we all know how pop culture affects us in America.

I do find it pretty lame how the far left is still on attack mode. Obama's speech was good and even the right gave him his due. The Left wouldn't say anything positive about the Right no matter how correct they are and often scream loudest against them when they ARE correct... (they keep their mouths shut when they SHOULD speak up.. but that's another topic).

We have 2 flawed but interesting tickets. I can rip either side apart with little effort. I do admit that I love Palin's populist vibe (why didn't the Democrats run a populist candidate? Wouldn't THAT have been a no brainer to the powers that be?) but alas, she isn't at the top of her ticket (though I bet there are a lot of Republicans who wish she was right now). I find the argument that McCain is another Bush term to be completely dishonest. I can find plenty of reasons why you shouldn't vote for McCain, but being like Bush is NOT one of them.. but it plays to those too lazy to look at the truth or get the facts. McCain's immigration plan is probably all the reason anyone would ever need to NOT vote for him. If the Democrats pounded that non stop, that alone might be enough. Instead, they risk looking disingenouous by using bogus arguments against him that many will see through. But that's a big fault with the Democrats and it's why they lost to George Bush twice when any rational party could have blown him out of office, especially in the second term. They nominated in Kerry, the one guy who could lose to Bush.. and he did. Obama might be the one guy who could lose to the Republicans. But he's the sexiest candidate they've ever had. I think voting style over substance is once again putting this all at risk for the Dems. It doesn't help that while they are pointing to 4 more years of Bush and his 30% (which no one, including McCain supporters, really wants) they seem oblivious to the fact that their own House and Senate members have an 8% approval rating. Logic would say if you don't want 4 more years of the guy with 30% approval, you'd definitely NOT want any more years of the people with the 8% approval rating. I think the Republicans should turn that whole "4 more years of Bush" argument around on them with the congress.. but the Republicans aren't always the sharpest sticks either. And so it goes in American politics.

Brian

Andrew,

Even if all your points were 100% correct, someone could pull up the list of Obama lies and innacuracies to counter it. That's why no one is responding. It's never ending. Both parties have a myriad of dishonest, exaggerated and misleading track records. It's like when someone interviews for a job and presents you with their resume.. to an experienced interviewer, you can see through all the hype and overblown job descriptions and realize you're going to have to go as much with gut as with the fairy tale written down on paper. I'd rather not get into a back and forth of longs lists of points where all the candidates have been wrong. (Believe me, it takes 30 second to go out on the web and find plenty to hate about all the people running). It's clear that you support Obama and no one is going to try to convince you otherwise. That's fine with me. I hope you go out and vote. It's clear we're not going to get Ray off of the Republicans.. that's also fine. You guys have made up your mind and good for you. Even in the face of the negatives that can be stated about your candidates, you've accepted them. So trotting out the DNC or RNC talking point attack lists means nothing. (Not to mention most of them are themselves stretching the truth beyond credibility just as the candidates do themselves).

So don't get discouraged that not everyone is jumping on your facts and negative PR disguised as such. Just as anyone posting the long list of Obama problems should not get discouraged when YOU ignore theirs as well. That's just reality here in the US as well.

Brian

It's easy to say "but both parties are doing it", it's another thing to actually look over the record of the campaigns each person has been running and see who is spreading the most misinformation. These are not subjective matters. McCain has, consistently, been flat out LYING about Obama's tax plan over and over and over and over again in countless ads. Look it up on factcheck if you don't believe me, it has been verified by any number of third-party organizations who spend all their time analyzing economics like this.

Palin's speech was a mixture of "feel good" rhetoric and attacks on Obama. Nothing wrong with feel good rhetoric, inherently, but when you actually look at her attacks at Obama and the few policy issues she raised, virtually every last one of them is completely and utterly bogus. Why would you be so gung-ho about a women who lies SO blatantly? (eg. "I fight against earmarks!" while simultaneously trying to get hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.)

Again, not saying the Obama camp has not spread misinformation as well... this happens, certainly, but it really is a lot worse with McCain and Palin.

It was more like 5 seconds Brian

http://obamawho.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/remember-obamas-exaggerations-and-misstatements/

Everyone is full of crap in certain ways---even THEY might not realize ! ! I hope that McCain's horrible McCain/Kennedy immigration bill is history...But funny...I remember (not too long ago)...McCain was FOR that bill AND he was suggesting that we needed a SURGE of troops in Iraq in order to WIN the peace in that country...EVERYONE was silent except for him...I remember thinking that between those two things that his presidential quest was done and over. And NOW? Well...it does seem that we will get to exit Iraq WITH some dignity at least...their future is certainly up for grabs...but it feels like they at LEAST have a chance now...(I am NOT saying the whole fiasco was a good thing now) BUT I truly believe (in retrospect) that HE was the only voice coming out of all the smoke that said cut and run...and on that he was right, they at least have a chance now. That immigration bill was HORRIBLE and actually invigorated people who normally don't say ANYTHING...to stand up and scream...Wow to go from that...to within a breath of being president is amazing and just goes to show how unpredictable these things can be.

They are politians, manure is their lifeblood.

Andrew,

Obama has lied over and over about McCain saying he wanted to keep the Iraq war going 100 years. McCain actually pointed out that we're in Germany and Japan and South Korea STILL and we could be in Iraq for 100 years as well. It doesn't matter if there's no military actions going on. We're not fighting in Japan or Germany either right? Any intelligent person who is being honest at all knew exactly what his point was. Obama also knew because he's a smart guy. But he's let his "handlers" talk him into making a dishonest intellectual argument. That's how these things work. So, as I said, the attacks can go on and on. Can you honestly say that all the point you made were thought of and researched entirely by YOU? If not, then I'd much rather hear your OPINION and thoughts about your directly observe than to simply read a list of stuff you got from politically charged sources. There's ample propaganda going around and around. Both parties want you to focus on THAT rather than what you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears. That is what "talking points" are all about. Dumbing down and misdirecting the facts to align with your goals.

If you want to use surrogates to tell you what is true and false about all sides, there are plenty of people lined up to do that for you. It's sort of like brain washing though. If someone grows up in a Communist regime and only gets one set of dogma, they are likely to believe it, even if it is not in their best interest. They really only know and trust that source of info and are not trusting of anything that contradicts it. Same can be said for anyone who focuses on any one parties dogma. It's easy to get caught up and outraged by the propaganda by either party. And once you hear the stuff from the other guys, you get ticked off because it calls what you've come to believe into question. Whenever I see someone who can look at the political system we have here in the US and only find fault with one side or the other I have to think they've been a bit brainwashed. Our party system and the people within are rife with problems. If you were ranting against both sides, I'd probably be more interested in what you had to say. But if you think Obama is a perfect and qualified candidate who has done no wrong, then there's not likely much I can learn from you about McCain. Only with some balance and skepticism of all sides can you reach an informed judgement. But that's just my opinion. Perhaps you DO have problems with Obama but simply choose to stay quiet about them.

Brian

Not all politicians are bad people...generalizations like that are just another way to divert attention from the issues...one of them is going to run the country for better or worse...i am going to just make sure the one i choose lines up with how i do on the real issues, cast my vote, then as an American get behind who ever wins the thing...us against the world is not that far away anymore and we should all realize we have more in common than we do in difference...
i may be wrong but i believe McCain will put it out there again tonight how he sits on many major issues...i say they are not all bad because, my wife's aunt was married to George Murphy, a great friend of Reagan, he was a Senator from California, and a great guy, not to mention a movie star (danced on film with Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers many times)...be well...moker

The problem with McCain's and everyone elses immigration ideas is that they miss the point entirely. This isn't an issue that belongs solely to Mexico and the unique problem with illegal immigration involving that country and immigration at large.

I am all for opening the gates to immigration. I think we could make it a lot easier and managable. But we need balance. Immigration isn't supposed to be about taking the entire collective of poor tired and hungry from a bordering large nation (and make no mistake, Mexico is a large nation). It's about letting the tired poor and hungry in from around the world in proportional amounts. If we have room for 10 million immigrants, let's get those 10 million people from ALL countries and from all ethnicities, races and religions. No country can absorb 10 million people and not have it change their makeup to be more like the 1 country that is essentially invading it. For the US to be the melting pot that it is, we need diversity. That means people from all over the world. I am sure we can find plenty of people who would love to come to the US and join our culture, learn to communicate with our average citizens and follow our laws rather than those of their home country. If you watched the Olympics, it was clear how little diversity there was in most countries. But in the case of the US, we had Asian, African, South American, European and even some Aussie/Kiwi types mixed in with the mutts that are Americans. Our diversity is our strength. With all the immigrants coming overwhemlingly from Mexico, that's damaging on many levels. First, all the money is going out of our country across a border to support the economy of 1 other nation. Those immigrants are not as likely to invest that money in the US but rather use it to invest in another country. Many of them have no real interest in becoming Americans at all, not even in name, let alone culturally.

There's definitely evidence of other communities forming around nations of origins. In Chicago more than any other place I've lived, there's whole neighborhoods who rallied around being Polish or Russian or Chinese or Indian (etc.). But as a whole, those communities still work together and they mix together in all ways in a single generation. But if all those neighborhoods were instead from 1 single nation and culture, there is no melting pot. And it simply becomes US versus THEM.

So if McCain had said "let's open the doors to ALL nations and expedite legal workers from countries around the world to come in and fill the needs we have in the US" I'd have been all for it. Instead, he wanted to open the flood gates to primarily 1 nation only.. Mexico. And Bush and McCain definitely were birds of a feather on that one. I am sure part of it was because they were from Border states where their daily interaction with Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, biased them towards that one nation. I think that missed the bigger picture. And that lack of larger view really concerned my about McCain and still does. Sadly, it seems Obama is pretty much for the same thing, though his specifics on immigration is pretty hard to find. If I learned his view on immigration was closer to mine, I could definitely swing his way on that one issue. For me, it's as critical as Abortion is to so many others.

As for the problems in Mexico, I am not blind to that either. I think rather than having so many Mexican workers come here illegally to fill the jobs, once those jobs go to other legal immigrants from other nations, we should work more closely to develop businesses in partnership with their large and able workforce. If we need the skilled Mexican labor force, let's utilize them in their own country. American companies already have plants set up there, and as long as the profits from those companies are coming back into the US (the opposite of what happens now with immigrants sending their money earned in US jobs out of the US) we shouldn't fear setting up shop right there in their towns. Keep them home and with their families. That's a family values issues I'd like to see either side raise. Stop making them risk their lives coming across the desert. Make the products, ship them back here and keep the profits from their sales in the US. That seems like a win win for everyone in the long run. And for those who really want to be American citizens, let them come here legally and via the same quota system that all other nations must follow. Fair is fair and it's best for everyone.

So what issues do you agree with Obama on and which ones do you disagree with folks? Same for McCain? I am curious to know.

Brian

America is way overburdened with give away programs, immigration should be granted to those who have married an American, have a legal job in America (which should only be granted to citizens), or are sponsored by a blood relative who is an American. The students should be granted study visas for college and have to check in like it was parole each semester, if they don't check in, deport them. Our country can no longer be the check writer for the world. Our immigration policy has pulled the individual wealth of nearly all Americans down by 10%, the only ones to gain are the ones selling them groceries, largely bought by food stamps, or providing them with electricity, water, etc. The rest of us are losing work and income to the illegal immigrants. I'm not altogether opposed to immigration, my grandmother came here through Ellis Island in 1905, however she did it legally and the fact that we have millions of illegals we are supporting either with our giveaway programs or the work ourselves, our sons and daughters would be doing reminds me daily of how our immigration policy has us eating our own tail...don't get me going on our trade imbalance which is in itself the main reason our dollar has devalued so far...gee i feel better now...ha...

Moker: Are those opinions or facts? The reason I ask is cause when I read this: I say, hmmm, where did that number come from? It can also be argued that we have paid a lot less for food over the past 20 years or so, because we have "cheap, manual labor" to pick it.

By the way I agree that illegal immigration doesn't make any sense and the trade imbalance and debt (deficit) are two things that are wrecking our country's financial backbone.

Kevin

Amen, Moker......

Scott

I am curious as to what the biggest upsides of each candidate winning would be? i.e. what happens if they are elected and do a really good job at what their strengths are?

Obama: I think he could do well to regain some admiration of some segments of world leadership that has had a hate fest with the US. I also think it would break a barrier of ethnic diversity that certainly wouldn't hurt. I think he might pay attention to some social issues like health care and might make it more widely available to those who don't have it.

McCain: I think he would be perceived as a strong leader and opposition to Russia and their desire to take over the break away republics and would also tamper down the Iranian issue. I also think he'd be a strong force in allowing a democratic Iraq to move forward. I think he would fight corruption within both parties and Palin's involvement would bring some traditional values to the forefront and also break the barrier of women rising to the highest ranks of office.


So, I'd like to hear from others of you ONLY if you can find a best case scenario positive result that you think BOTH candidates would bring. If you can't offer 2 positives (or they are simply veiled sarcasm) then don't bother. We've all focused on the negatives.. let's talk positives from those open minded to see that both sides do have talents and do bring something to the table.

Brian

Kevin, absolutely educated opinions on the 10%...i have countless experience over the last twenty years of being in business here in Florida where illegals are getting work, below the going rate, so much so that if you try and fight it legally that's all you'd be doing...it is rampant...the sheer number of illegal immigrants lead me to choose 10%...the grocery thing doesn't hold up for me Kev, not when i see those same immigrants that are taking my work, my friends in other trades work they would have had, my son's work, buying their groceries with food stamps while you and i pay with cash we have paid taxes on first...most of them are not buying a house with a mortgage, taking care of that property and thus improving the value of the adjacent property, no that's not the case...yeah i'm ranting a bit i know, i have lost alot of contracts to these guys myself, i am a very small shop and i estimate i have lost 100,000 a year in business for the past ten years due to the illegal worker, there really isn't much of an enforcement board in place, a few laws are in place but are rarely if ever enforced...do i compete with them, hell yes, should i have to like this, hell no...moker

Okay, here's my take on it.

I think we're going to get Obama, by the way. I think George Bush Junior's legacy is going to be too much for any Republican to overcome. Not my preference (I liked Fred Thompson, myself), but I deal with reality as I find it, and I think that's how it's going to come down.

Whoever becomes President is going to end the Iraq War one way or another, and rather a large number of young folks are going to come back to the U.S.--to find the economy in a shambles, and no work anywhere. Their homecoming will exacerbate the problem.

On the other hand, there is public infrastructure--roads, bridges, water and sewer systems--all over the U.S. that are falling apart, and are very expensive to fix or replace. And ending the war means (among other things) that billions of dollars that were being spent overseas no longer will be. (True, all that was borrowed money. But it's still money.)

The solution available from all those "parts" is a massive program of Federal and Federally-funded public works that puts all (or lots) of those unemployed to work and gives 'em a paycheck somehow. That is an FDR-type solution (FDR, though, got the idea from none other than Adolf Hitler, who had some very smart, if not exactly ethical, people working for him.) Oh, and it'll take a lot of borrowed money.

I think a Democratic Administration is likely to be more comfortable with doing this than a Republican one (particularly since it was a Democratic solution in the first place). Republicans are institutionally inclined to prime the *other* end of the pump, giving money to financial institutions in the expectation they will lend it out (which they historically have not done). George Bush Jr. has already tried a little of that, and it's worked about as well as when Herbert Hoover did it 50-odd years ago.

And that's my story, and I'm (at least tentatively) stickin' to it. One just hopes these guys have a little conception of history; as the Prussian general von Clausewitz liked to say, "Those who do not read history are condemned to repeat it."

As far as running the country goes, Obama--if he reads history--can steal a leaf from the Other Side, and do basically what Ronald Reagan did as President--be the Great Communicator, and do the domestic stuff, while leaving foreign policy details to his V.P. on the premise the V.P. knows more about it. That could work. I don't think the McCain/Palin team could pull that off as well.

My opinion, as always.

Joe

McCain and Palin would revitalize the Republican party, which is currently mired by disappointment with the present administration. I think McCain would also help restore credibility in the world because I believe he is a basically decent person, and that always translates well (although other countries would probably have an easier time accepting Obama at this point in time). I think McCain would work hard to ensure his legacy differed from that of his predecessor.

Obama will surprise people, I believe. Many wonder about his voting record and his apparent desire to keep his hands clean in order to get elected...but once in office, that won't matter anymore, and we will see how he acts as a commander. I would expect a very strong push to redirect our energy policy in a greener direction...things like that go a lot faster when supported from the top. I believe he will make a positive impact on our system of health care, and I believe he will find an honorable solution to the war in Iraq.

Sorry I only read the first few posts and gave up.... so sorry if this has already been said..... I heard this on the radio yesterday from a journolist...

"If it weren't for Palin we'd all still be talking/ writing about Obama"....

Now debate if she was a good or bad choice....

Cheers

Here's a pearl: people often confuse what motivates others with what would be their own motivation for taking the same action. So, substituting the first person singular for the second person singular in any given post can reveal much about its author.

I have to say, this is the most civilized discussion of politics I've seen in quite a while. A couple other music sites I frequent are completely out of control. Negative responses at every turn. Congrats to the members here.

I'm 87% sure that 52% of registered voters will ignore 40% of the hype surrounding the candidates, discard 17% to 19% of it outright, disbelieve another 22% and retain either 11% (Dems) or 39% (Reps) which they will be able to recall with 70% accuracy only 30% of the time. That's 387%!!

UP yours!

Ha!!!!

I agree bass2x plus a horn. The folks here have practice debating song structure and lyrics! Plenty of dicussion practice, where we all seem to want to help each other, even when completely disagreeing.

Great people make a great site!

Congrats JPF!

John

Well,
Lots of opinions again. It is good that everyone is able to say what they think. The American people as a whole will be able to filter out the chaff and probably make a good choice. I hope.

As I understand it there is about 8 million immigrants on the list to become U.S. Citizens now. I did not agree with McCain's position on the illegal immigrants in the country. I am not sure what President Bush's position was, perhaps close to McCain's position. About 70 percent of the American people opposed Amnesty for the illigals so that issue is deader than a door nail. Appearently a lot of illegals have returned home because of the soft economy.

President Bush took on all the hard issues. Maybe that is why his approval ratings are so low.

If there was no 911 it may not matter who gets elected. And maybe Obama will do all right if he is elected. But I have a real problem with his take on taxes. The very people that he thinks will be helped may be helped right out of a job. And jobs are being cut as we speak. Here in our region we have a place called Sea Island. It is where rich people build expensive homes. The whole place is maintained by the Sea Island Company. Landscaping and such. They just laid off most of the workers. And we have been doing better than the country as a whole. So that is a small picture of what is happening all over the country. The state has had to do drastic budget cuts because of the lack of tax collections. In California the governor wanted to put all state employees on minium wage because of having trouble getting a budget passed.
And the Stock Market is doing nothing since January. And some want to blame it on the president. Have a nice day.

Brian, believe it or not I consider myself a 'moderate' though I find Democrats line up with my most important beliefs, more often than not. Obama has his flaws like anyone else, but it upsets me to see people falling for Palin when I've seen only false vitriol from her. No worthwhile plans, only lies and hypocrisy.

I'm not afraid to take unpopular stances and defend unpopular individuals. When Spitzer was under fire and everyone jumped on board the "shame on you" bandwagon, I pointed out all the AMAZING things he did as a legislator that, in my opinion, far outweigh the bad judgment of an extramarital affair. I don't think abortion is right and I don't believe in strict gun control (ie. I think there should be strict guidelines as to who can buy a gun, and illegal guns should be cracked down on, but I strongly support the right to carry.) It's just the other way around in this case, I happen to think that Palin is getting way too much credit.

Good speech, John. Hats off to you....

Scott

Yeah, McCain hit a home run.

Not that I plan to vote for him...

But that was a killer speech, and he's a good man. I always thought he should have been the candidate in 2000. I often wonder what we would have done had McCain won eight years ago.

McCain is a decent man who served his country with honor. I think he's been a centrist and definitely not a rabid right winger. I wish he'd beat Bush in 2000.

But since then he's voted with Bush 90% of the time. I don't see that as change. The GOP wants a do over.

No dice.

Of course, you have to factor in that 92% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Is 387% a majority? I wasn't clear on that...

Joe

Wendell,

Do you know the % of time that EVERYONE votes UNAMIOUSLY in the Senate? How about the % that Obama voted the same as Bush wanted (remember, Bush doesn't vote, so it's not exactly clear that anyone votes with or against him since he isn't creating the laws, only perhaps endorsing them)? How about the % he voted the same as McCain? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think you might be surprised by the answers nonetheless.

And to Richard.. apparently it's beneath you to engage in the discussion and instead all you can do is hurl obscure sarcasm... so either support a candidate, support a position or go elsewhere.. your boring sarcasm and attempts to be pissy add nothing of value to any of this.

Brian

I thought the McCain speech was fairly weak actually. There were a few highlights (his education comments were perhaps the best) but I thought he dwelt a bit too much on the military service stuff after everyone else had already discussed it. I think he would have been better served to let others bring it up and he instead focus on today and the future. He's without a doubt the most legitimate hero we've ever had run for President in my life time and probably one of the greatest ever. His family has given and given and given to this country and I think he's certainly ready for anything. But I still wanted to hear some specifics just as I wanted to hear them from Obama. But it seems handlers will simply not allow either candidate to commit to anything lest they be held to the idea later. For me, it seems clear that neither candidate has the conviction to stick to their ideas and solutions. As soon as one or the other does, I imagine all hell will break loose and that plan will be ripped apart no matter how legit it might be. There's never a solution to anything in the big picture that doesn't hurt one set of people while helping another. People profit off of misery and failure just as often as happiness and success so someone's interests will ALWAYS be stepped on in some way, even in the least expected topics.

So now we have 61 days to see what happens next. A few early polls show things are knotted back up and even. So it's anyone's game at this time. I think either way, we either get someone who is very smart or very honorable. I don't think we could always say that about the last 16 years worth of Presidents.

Brian,

I've enjoyed reading all of your posts on the election. I agree with your insights on most of them. However, I don't think your assertions about immigration in regards to McCain are accurate. I'm assuming by immigration ideas you refer to the most recent attempt at immigration reform, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

I understand items on Wikipedia may have questionable accuracy, but I don't see anything here that even hints that this legislation or McCain aren't open to immigrants from all nations, just as we have always been. This law would have given amnesty to ANY illegal immigrant living in the US, and it would have helped secure the borders with Mexico. It also overhauled some other items, but it does not fundamentally change openness to all nations.

Yes, the main reason for crafting the law was to do something about massive illegal immigration from Mexico, but where in this does it imply that McCain will not support "open the doors to ALL nations and expedite legal workers from countries around the world to come in and fill the needs we have in the US"? And were does this law or McCain specifically open floodgates just for Mexican immigration?

This bill was also introduced by Harry Reid (D), and was worked on by Kennedy (D), and McCain (R) and supported by President Bush. It was a bipartisan effort. The bill was shot down mostly because everybody complained about giving amnesty to illegals. I'm not in favor of that either, but by the same token, what else are we going to do? We can't send everybody back...so, now we have no reform at all...

I'm just not getting where you are coming from on this point...

Doug,

My assertion has to do with giving amnesty to the illegal aliens already in the country rather than kicking them all out and letting in, in their place, legal aliens from around the world. Do you see my distinction? The vast and overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the US hail from Mexico. That's problematic to the very core of our nation. They've demonstrated a disregard and disrespect for our laws already so I feel we owe them nothing. They need to go. And to replace them, we should offer (if apparently there is room for them in the first place) those slots to immigrants from around the world in whatever number our country feels we need to supply adequate workforces to get things done.

McCain and his plan wanted to give a quick pathway to legal status to all those illegal aliens. I say, let's kick them out (by force if needed) and then, if there is justification for that many new immigrants to the US, we replace them with people around the world, not just from Mexico. I disagree that we can't send them all back. We can and we should. If they are illegal, they need to go back to wherever they came from. If we need people to do their jobs, bring them from around the world. If they won't leave, then we escort them to the border by force. If Mexico won't take them back, then we cut off all diplomatic ties because I see this incursion as bordering on an act of war by Mexico anyway. Is this a hard line stance? Yes. Nothing short of that will solve this problem. And before anyone says "but those folks need the work to support their families" can anyone suggest they are worse off than the sub saharan african refuges who are starving in the dirt? There are people who need help everywhere.. Mexico has a wealth of resources (including a LOT of oil). They have far better resources to care for their own people than many other countries in the world. We should spread the opportunities around.

Illegal immigration is bad for everyone, including the illegals. They have little rights, they are often the targets of crime yet can't report it, they are treated horribly with unsafe and unreasonable work condition and no benefits. Even if they are paying payroll tax, they are losing out on any legit retirement benefits they would be due if they were legal. Dishonest sleazebag companies use them all as boderline slave labor and we all act as if it's perfectly fine because they help keep our fruit cheap. And if they have children in the US (which they do at an overwhelming rate compared to legal citizens) they need to take them with them back to their country of origin. If their parents are citizens there, they have dual citizenship. If they want to come back as adults over 18, that's fine.

It's a critical problem and will take a serious solution or it will continue to spiral out of control. McCain, Bush, Reid and Kennedy are all wrong on the issue. And the American Public finally stood up to them all.

Brian

Ok. That makes sense. I completely agree with you about the serious consequences illegal immigration poses. I agree we don't owe anybody anything. I just don't think it's realistic that the Federal government will send everybody back (I understand the sentiment - but I don't think it's realistic). The cat is out of the bag. To get anything done on domestic policy, there usually must be compromise. So, this bill was an attempt to compromise, and place some responsibility for the illegal act on the person, and to help improve the border and limit some of the loopholes.

Now, we have nothing but the status quo, and we probably won't for a long time, because this effort failed. So, all the bad things you pointed out will continue.

The biggest hope is for states (like that guy in Indiana) to enact legislation cracking down on businesses hiring illegals.

I'm really not sure how I feel on regarding the illegal immigration situation. Part of me recognizes that if someone is here illegally, they are by definition showing a disregard for our laws, and therefore should be deported.

On the other hand, using Mexico as an example, the people seem to be fleeing a government even more corrupt than our own, and trying to make a better life for themselves. These people are searching for the great American dream that so many of us seem to have forgotten. Most of these people aren't here to sponge off the government. They are hard working folks doing their best in a bad situation. They are willing to take the jobs that most of us would never do. Are they taken advantage of? Sometimes yes. But even so, it seems to be preferable to returning to Mexico. That itself says something.

Now if they are here to sponge off the government and the taxpayers, then I have absolutely no qualms about deportation.

As I said, I really don't know how I feel about it. I do think it is important to look at all sides, and I am willing to be convinced one way or the other.

That depends on what you mean by the word, "are".

Brian. Just for the record, I do support some candidates as well as some positions. And I usually weigh in upon entering a discussion. However, I believe arguing just wastes everybody's time.

As I form an impression of a person, I tend to gauge how rigid or flexible he is. Rigid people make me uncomfortable and, rightly or wrongly, I tend to see them as a threat to progress. I like fresh ideas and am intolerant of people who refuse to consider them.

I never did understand why people will, in order to get their point across, repeat arguments that didn't work the first time; as if louder and more emphatic will somehow be more convincing. This seems absurd to me, and my responses reflect it.

Many people on this forum will disagree with me, but I think most of what you say is pure bunk. Here's one example:

I would be embarrassed to have written that.

I don't like to be mean. And I would prefer that you just ignore my posts, since I can't block yours. I know this forum is your baby, and realize I risk being excluded from it. But I'm not going to kiss up to you, like some of the members do, just to stay here. I do have a little self-respect.

Richard: Show the big man some love! It is surprising to me that Brian allows political and religious discussion here -- especially since those topics can be so polarizing. My other most frequented forum (fenderforum.com) allows ZERO such topics.

In any case, this is shaping up to be an OK election. As opposed to Bush in 2004, I am not cringing at a Republican victory here. I am mostly in the Obama/Biden camp, but having the President and the majority of congress from the same party hasn't really worked too well for America in the recent past. Checks and balances are a good thing.

Kevin

I think it's far more embarrassing to be so unsure of your own opinion and beliefs that you have to hide behind insults and sarcasm and vagaries rather than make a point about anything that is of use to anyone.

I can't help but wonder where you folks got the notion that Illegal Mexican immigrants only pick fruit and vegetables. That work only lasts for a few weeks in the fall. What do you think they do the rest of the time?
I don't know where you live but here they are working in ALL the building trades, Putting American carpenters, Concrete workers, Brick layers, Etc. out of work.
They wait tables, Cook, bag our groceries, and drive trucks.
They work in Landscaping. Factories, Warehouses, you name it.
And not ALL of these jobs are low paying jobs. Some make very good money.

In addition they also have their wives and children sitting in the local Department of human services getting food stamps and financial aid. That is FACT.
They have babies in our Hospitals who are born American citizens so we can't send Mom back to Mexico without the Baby. And they know this
They have no insurance and there is no way for the Hospital to collect the bill.
They have their New $40,000 cars parked in the lot right next to the $25,000 cars of the people who work there.
Their Children go to our public schools where we have to provide a Spanish Speaking person to teach them.
And they are NOT required to take a class to learn English but our American US citizen children are REQUIRED to take a class in Spanish.

Have any of you ever even wondered why you have to press 2 for Spanish but not 3 for German, or 4 for Chinese, or 5 for Italian, or any other language? The day will come when it will be press 2 for English.
When my Grand daughter calls her case worker at the department of human Services her voicemail answers in SPANISH. there isn't even a second message in English.

Unless this problem is fixed it isn't going to matter which one of these two you vote into office in November Nothing is going to change.
And the argument that we can't just round them up and doesn't hold up at all. All you have to do is stop in at any farm, or Construction site, or the Department of Human services(welfare office for those that don't know).
At the rate of Illegal immigration we have you will be needing Rosetta Stone in 50 years.
There are THIRTY MILLION illegal immigrants in this Country. THIRTY MILLION and it increases by Thousands every week.
That's 10% of our population. Our official unemployment rate is about 7%....Hmmmmmm
There is one solution. Round them up and send them home. Pass legislation that says an Illegal immigrant cannot have a baby in this country and it is a citizen. And make it retroactive for 20 years.

And on Palin. Most of the stuff I have read on these so called Factcheck sites is Bull. Even the math they use doesn't add up if you look close enough.

On Obama. Talk about falsehoods.
He said He grew up poor on the streets. Worked his way up.

Gimme a break. Sheesh.
He was groomed for this from the day he went to Columbia. You really think he did this all by himself?

His education comments ticked me off. He got everyone riled up by the idea that the problem with American schools is bad teachers. Do you believe this? Are you involved in education today? I am NOT seeing that as the problem, nor is it a matter of bloated education budgets or administrators spending tax dollars on martini lunches. Currently our classroom sizes are expanding, teacher salaries are decreasing, more qualified teachers are being passed over for younger, cheaper teachers, and the biggest focus for all of them is test scores for the No Child Left Behind system...they all must teach to the test, not to the curriculum. Education is being damaged by a lack of funding.

Oh oh, shoot...that just lost the attention of the right--so we all have to PAY for other kids' education, eh? No way, not us...

McCain's talk of education was absolutely empty and even deceptive, firing up everyone on an idea that our schools' problem is bad teachers. Go see for yourself how we treat the good ones. I'm in my kids' schools every week and my wife is a teacher struggling to remain in that profession, but lay off after lay off is due to underfunding, and if you talk to any teacher you may know, you will see a sick look on their face and hear a story of how program after program is being cut due to government mandated budget cuts.

If we no longer wish to fund primary education, we have no right to gripe about how well our citizens are being educated. That is one area that I used to think everyone agreed was a good use of tax dollars...education, police force, fire department...these things are pretty important to all of us, don't you think? Shall we privatize it all to keep more money in our pockets? Shall we privatize the police?

That part of the speech was the worst part, to me. Don't fall for it. The idea was to appeal to the part of you that worries about getting skinned, and he placed the blame on your kids' teacher. Guess what? That's the wrong target.

Thanks, Mark. We do seem to have made the "blame somebody else" mantra endemic in our society, and it's too bad. I suppose it's too much to expect that politicians would shy away from it. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to be in anyone's vocabulary any more. (Maybe it's the number of syllables. Something else we can blame on the teachers.)

My opinion (and mine only): You want to know what's wrong with this country? Look in the mirror. You want to know what can make it better? Look in the mirror. Duh.

Joe

We were probably just looking for different things. I wanted to see some sign that the old McCain was still there - not the one who appeared to me over the last month or so of having been fully assimilated into the Republican base. And he showed them...

It's my impression though that the nominee has a tremendous say over who says what in their speeches. So I continue to be disappointed in him for endorsing the over-the-top speeches of Guliani and Palin, and for the negative attack ads this summer.

On the other hand, congratulating Obama on the night of his speech was a class act.

Last night, McCain really seemed to be walking a tightrope between appealing to the Republican base (giving props to President Bush) and showing that he is his own man. (Some of those delegates didn't look very happy last night when he started talking about the party losing its way )

Question is, which McCain will be in the White House? Stupid question actually - they both will.

Bottom line though is that I was pleased to see he was willing to criticize the party and its members when he thought it was warranted...

Scott

John McCain is the type of American i want running my government...he has many times gone against party lines to stand for what he believes is right...but Barack Obama is the DNC nominee and hats off to him for the accomplishment, i know it didn't come easy...i don't think he's in the same league with McCain when it comes to being the qualified type of person i want as our leader... in fact between Barack and Michelle, they actually scare the hell out of me...your vote is up to you, i know where mine is going...mj

I have to agree with you on the Education thing Mark.
IMHO, though, the Federal Government should not be involved in local public Education. It should be up to the individual states to educate our kids.
The Fed has cut so many programs from the school system it is scary. And teachers are overworked and underpaid.
Maybe if we spent less money on prisons and more money on schools we might be able to make a difference.

I'm not sure I like Obama's plan of Providing 4 years of community college in exchange for public service. I assume he means Federal Public service since the Fed will pay for it.
Isn't that akin to indentured servitude.

Why would we need that. Obama himself has made it clear that he was a poor kid from the streets that managed to go to Harvard. If he could do it why can't every one else?

Yeah Bill, I hear you on that plan. But at least it encourages public service, which really isn't happening now (except in recent election speeches). This is the first concrete proposal I've heard, other than a lot of words like "get involved".

But yes, it would cost, probably too much...in fact, the cost of a year of college is usually a lot more than the salary of a public service employee...I think the hoped-for payoff would be in a different kind of citizen...and less apathetic students.

Mark. With regard to primary education, I sent two boys through Public school and one through Montessori. Montessori places greater stress on self-reliance and adapts easily to individual learning rates. If No Child Left Behind is the goal, I believe Montessori is the answer. However, to be effective it must be administered as originally conceived.

There are a slew of books on the subject, but the one to read is "Spontaneous Activity in Education", by Maria Montessori herself. Even her other books on that subject are disappointing by comparison. I've often wondered what a disillusioned Public school teacher might think of that book.

our primary education system would be better off if we had a voucher system paid for by the property taxes that follows the children to the school they attend. we have our daughter in private school but pay property taxes that go directly to the public school system. the taxes should go with the child to the school they attend. she deserves , in my opinion, a better than mediocre education , which is what many of the public schools are providing our children. so we pay our taxes, and then pay the full tuition at the private school. the teachers are almost all underpaid, which explains the lower quality of teaching that is going on, for the most part...i don't mean to offend, because there are many brilliant, caring people in public education, it's the system that needs an overhaul, we say we value education , but we rank , well might as well be last in education among thriving nations...it effects our kids adversely in a world that has become very global in it's commerce and i don't know really how to fix it, i just know it's not competitve on a global scale and Washington is all in the middle of it as usual...moker

There are many who have said Montessori is fine for younger children, but that by the time they reach adolescence, for some students, it lacks in the preparation for social skills required for entering into college, much less urban lives as young adults. Any response on that from experience? The kids i know who have gone that route are academically fine, but socially challenged, balance is a hard thing sometimes is it not?

The trouble with the system you're looking for is that it will absolutely destroy public schools. Who would want to go there with less and less money going to it? No one. So let's put our public taxes into private schools. Good for you, terrible for the populace.

there are many very well rated public schools, which people are on waiting lists to get into....my aim is that if we're going to have public education then it must meet a standard that makes our students competitve on an international level...a business degree these days is not nearly as valuable as an international business degree, the old way of thinking has us falling further behind...weed out the bad part of the system
and build on the strengths of it as well...the decision of where to educate your child would be placed back in the hands of the parent for much of middle America. Businesses pay property taxes too, as you well know, the urban schools are widely funded by the many businesses that surround them...the defense of our current system will only put our kids further behind on competing in a global market...there's a way to do it, it just ain't the way we are doing it, and everyone, everyone, resists change that requires thinking out of the box, including me...i'm gonna go play guitar...ha...i like you guys too well and i have seen too much mediocre education, atleast in many of our local public schools here, 50 miles from here, there's a district everyone loves...