Quote:Meaning what?
Unless you either live under a rock or get your "news" from "the daily show" you would see how the city is most definitely divided.. The population has/is being taught that "the po po" is bad so therefor, we should riot and cause chaos. Let's shoot our guns at individuals and not worry about consequences.
For those that say that more gun control is needed, how many of the homicides and attacks currently taking place in Baltimore are done by law abiding concealed permit holders?
Quote:Unless you either live under a rock or get your "news" from "the daily show" you would see how the city is most definitely divided.. The population has/is being taught that "the po po" is bad so therefor, we should riot and cause chaos. Let's shoot our guns at individuals and not worry about consequences.
For those that say that more gun control is needed, how many of the homicides and attacks currently taking place in Baltimore are done by law abiding concealed permit holders?
Is that new, it sounds like the Wire created oh so many years ago.
Quote:Unless you either live under a rock or get your "news" from "the daily show" you would see how the city is most definitely divided.. The population has/is being taught that "the po po" is bad so therefor, we should riot and cause chaos. Let's shoot our guns at individuals and not worry about consequences.
For those that say that more gun control is needed, how many of the homicides and attacks currently taking place in Baltimore are done by law abiding concealed permit holders?
Yeah sure. Obama created the racial divide.
Quote:Yeah sure. Obama created the racial divide.
All he did was personify it.
Back on topic something I'm heavily weighing in which candidate to support is the unavoidable foreign conflicts ahead. I'm a borderline isolationist but I also realize an isolationist will never be president. That said Obama is in stall mode with ISIS so it's painfully obvious that's going to be the next presidents problem. The last thing I want is another Bush/Cheny/Rove group Attempting to not only invade but then police and spread democracy in the Middle East. I get the next few years were going to end up fighting in the Middle East again but which candidate is most likely to go in get the job done and get out just as fast. That's something I'm pondering still.
Quote:I don't think that he is weak on immigration. In fact, I thought that he did a great job reaching across party lines and coming up with a common sense solution to the immigration problem. It was establishment people that shot it down.
What we need is a President that can unite this country once again rather than our current President who has managed to divide the country more than ever.
As the son of immigrants that came here the honest way the last thing I'll support is any legislation that gives the line jumpers a leg up. Screw them go home and do it the right way like the rest of us. I know guys that border jumped and then worked tax free for decades while my family paid their dues did the paper and waited my dad waited 15 years my mother 13 years and I can't even count the ways both families sacrificed to get here no love for the border jumpers from me.
Secondly Rubio is pretty big on moral legislation I have a problem with that.
Quote:None of them probably.
One of them has to see the absurdity of nations building they just have to!
Quote:One of them has to see the absurdity of nations building they just have to!
None of the ones actually likely to get it.
I like what Bernie Sanders said about it: (According to Santorum Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders sound similar on ISIS, but he doesn't stand a shot either)
Quote:
"I'm sitting here wondering where Saudi Arabia is, where Kuwait is, where Qatar is," Sanders said on CNN's "New Day." "I'll be damned if kids in the state of Vermont -- or taxpayers in the state of Vermont -- have to defend the royal Saudi family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars."
Quote:None of the ones actually likely to get it.
I like what Bernie Sanders said about it: (According to Santorum Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders sound similar on ISIS, but he doesn't stand a shot either)
On that I agree with him 100%
Now excuse me while I go wash I just agreed with a socialist
Martin OMalley joined on the Dem side. If you watched The Wire he was the basis for the Baltimore mayor.
There isn't a single candidate that I like so far.
Quote:Martin OMalley joined on the Dem side. If you watched The Wire he was the basis for the Baltimore mayor.
Just added his name to the list in the first post. I don't know much about him, so more research is in order.
Quote:Back on topic something I'm heavily weighing in which candidate to support is the unavoidable foreign conflicts ahead. I'm a borderline isolationist but I also realize an isolationist will never be president. That said Obama is in stall mode with ISIS so it's painfully obvious that's going to be the next presidents problem. The last thing I want is another Bush/Cheny/Rove group Attempting to not only invade but then police and spread democracy in the Middle East. I get the next few years were going to end up fighting in the Middle East again but which candidate is most likely to go in get the job done and get out just as fast. That's something I'm pondering still.
However, being an "isolationist" isn't the way to go. Once again I'll point to North Korea. How has being an isolationist state worked out for them?
The other thing to consider is the fact that since we are one of the world's "super-powers" it is our duty to protect not only our interests, but those of our allies. The current President has failed miserably at doing this, and is leaving a huge mess for the next President to deal with.
Not only do we have the problem with ISIS, but there is also the issue of Iran and North Korea attempting to gain nuclear weapons. What happens if either one of those countries gains that kind of weaponry?
Then look at Russia and their attempt to conquer Ukraine. Which country might be their next target? What if our President ordered our military to attack and conquer Canada? Would that be something that is acceptable?
One of the many important factors involved when choosing our next President should be his/her foreign policy along with economic policy and immigration policy. Social policy (gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization, etc.) are way down at the bottom of my priorities when selecting my choice for President.
Quote:As the son of immigrants that came here the honest way the last thing I'll support is any legislation that gives the line jumpers a leg up. Screw them go home and do it the right way like the rest of us. I know guys that border jumped and then worked tax free for decades while my family paid their dues did the paper and waited my dad waited 15 years my mother 13 years and I can't even count the ways both families sacrificed to get here no love for the border jumpers from me.
Secondly Rubio is pretty big on moral legislation I have a problem with that.
Nobody is giving illegals a "leg up" under the plan that Marco Rubio was proposing (supported by both republicans and democrats). It's a common sense plan that actually deals with the problem in a realistic way. Sorry, nobody is going to "round up all of the illegals and send them home". It's just not realistically feasible.
Quote:<div>
Nobody is giving illegals a "leg up" under the plan that Marco Rubio was proposing (supported by both republicans and democrats). It's a common sense plan that actually deals with the problem in a realistic way. Sorry, nobody is going to "round up all of the illegals and send them home". It's just not realistically feasible.
I don't think waiting 13 years, having to pay back taxes, learn english and having to keep out of jail is really all that much of a 'leg up'
I used to be pretty far right. Back then I'd have probably gotten along with everyone here a lot better except probably boudreaux. I thought we should send all the illegals packing.
The problem is... we say "Come here legally!" except... many of them can't. It's not like they think "I don't want to go to the US legally, because I can avoid paying taxes if I just go there illegally and live off the American's dime!" They want to provide a better life for themselves. They see America as an opportunity, and if they could come here legally they certainly would. Their options are incredibly limited. They either stay in poverty, or come to America to try to get out of it. A path to citizenship with those caveats listed above is, imo, totally fair. And I don't see why anyone would think otherwise.
</div>
Quote:Nobody is giving illegals a "leg up" under the plan that Marco Rubio was proposing (supported by both republicans and democrats). It's a common sense plan that actually deals with the problem in a realistic way. Sorry, nobody is going to "round up all of the illegals and send them home". It's just not realistically feasible.
The problem is that nobody trusts the government to enforce the provisions that limit future illegal immigration. Under Reagan a bill was passed to give citizenship to illegals but stop future illegal immigration. There was no effort to stop it. NAFTA was supposed to end illegal immigration by building jobs in Mexico. That didn't stop it either. In 2006 the US passed a bill to build a fence*. Nine years later there is still no fence.
What make anyone here believe that the next 'comprehensive' bill would end (or even significantly slow down) illegal immigration? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Build the fence. Stop the flow. Then come back and discuss a path to citizenship.
*A
fence can only do so much, a determined person will find a way over, under, or through a fence. But a fence makes the path a lot more difficult, and that should at least make a significant dent in the problem.
Quote:
<div>
I don't think waiting 13 years, having to pay back taxes, learn english and having to keep out of jail is really all that much of a 'leg up'
I used to be pretty far right. Back then I'd have probably gotten along with everyone here a lot better except probably boudreaux. I thought we should send all the illegals packing.
The problem is... we say "Come here legally!" except... many of them can't. It's not like they think "I don't want to go to the US legally, because I can avoid paying taxes if I just go there illegally and live off the American's dime!" They want to provide a better life for themselves. They see America as an opportunity, and if they could come here legally they certainly would. Their options are incredibly limited. They either stay in poverty, or come to America to try to get out of it. A path to citizenship with those caveats listed above is, imo, totally fair. And I don't see why anyone would think otherwise.
</div>
That's the thing though. The bill introduced by Marco Rubio and his colleagues had provisions where the path to "legal status" didn't start for anyone until the border is secured. It also outlines a system of identifying who is here illegally, and placing them at the "back of the line" when it comes to legal immigrants. It also involves illegals to pay a fine, pay taxes and NOT be entitled to government assistance (Obamacare, welfare, food stamps, etc.). The bill that was introduced was simply a start to deal with the problem. What ended up happening though, is it got "shot down" by establishment politicians and Rubio was labeled.
If you have a few minutes to spare,
here is a video of him describing the problem and the solution on the Senate floor. He openly asks for input and ways to change the bill.
Here is an interview that Rush Limbaugh did with him regarding the bill. Interesting thing about this is how Rush tried to relate the issue to "politics" and how Marco Rubio pretty much "slammed" the Republican Party when it comes to the issue. For Rush, it was all about the politics and "the vote". What is particularly interesting is the question that Rush asks at about the 5:19 mark and Rubio's response. Particularly interesting is Rubio's remarks at about the 6:15 mark where he blames republicans for not sending the message about what true conservatism is about (economically and regarding opportunity for all, not just immigrants but citizens).