Topic: Are illegal immigrants actually "criminals"?
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: So, if that isn't a message, DW, what is it?
Well, let's look closer:
quote:Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack.
Great, they are "unwavering in their commitment to keep our nation safe" and "continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack."
How? More people? Better training for those already there? Pay raises to attract better canidates to the jobs? Management reorganizations? A drastic memo?
quote: Democrats support fair immigration reform that keeps our borders secure.
quote: I personally know of two bills proposed by the democrats. I have the same criticism for them as I have for the Republican bills - they treat the symtoms and not the cause. They deal with people already in the country but do little to prevent more from pouring over the borders or to reduce the desire to not go through official channels. (see my proposal above for how this can be done).
Democrats are also united to ensure that the world's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.
but again, how do they plan to do this? Will they increase the budget? If so, where will the money come from? Will they seek training from other nations or do we have in-house people who are experts?
While the Republicans aren't much clearer, I see more positivity from them (the party, not the talking heads on the radio).
Let's look at my voting record for president - 2 vote democrate, 1 republican. In the last primary, I voted for a democrat (he didn't get the nomination). I am the fabled "swing voter." I have no loyalty to either party and will readily vote for the party that I feel best represnts the goals that I would like to see acheived. If you want me to vote for you, you need to tell me how you will do a better job - simply telling me that the incumbent is a hack doesn't cut it. I already know that, I want to know why you are better, why your plan is more likely to succeed and how you plan on bringing it to fruition. I voted against Kerru because he failed to do that. He was unable to convince me that he could do better than the joker already there.
have no love for the Rebublicans and honestly would love to see a quality Democrat canidate. As a matter of fact, the next "quality canidate" the democrats field is very likely to get my vote as it will be the first quality canidate put forth by either party since Clinton. (Yes, I will admit that I though Clinton did a decent job, although he could have done better had he not been somewhat limited by the scandal that the republicans threw at him).
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by DemonWolf: How? More people? Better training for those already there? Pay raises to attract better canidates to the jobs? Management reorganizations? A drastic memo?
DW, have you not learned? The democrats have a great plan, but they are not going to share them with a mere mortal like you. I agree with you that the democrats have no vision, and no plan of action with dealing with anything. Either that or they are horrible and presenting them.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: So, if that isn't a message, DW, what is it?
Well, let's look closer:
quote:Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack.
Great, they are "unwavering in their commitment to keep our nation safe" and "continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack."
How? More people? Better training for those already there? Pay raises to attract better canidates to the jobs? Management reorganizations? A drastic memo?
Read the second paragraph.
quote:
quote: Democrats support fair immigration reform that keeps our borders secure.
quote: I personally know of two bills proposed by the democrats. I have the same criticism for them as I have for the Republican bills - they treat the symtoms and not the cause. They deal with people already in the country but do little to prevent more from pouring over the borders or to reduce the desire to not go through official channels. (see my proposal above for how this can be done).
Okay, *now* we're getting somewhere.
You can't say they don't have plans, when, in fact, they present you with a plan.
Disagreeing with their plan is fine, but it is not the same as them not having a plan.
For the record, I agree with you on this, but I don't know what the *right* answer is.
quote:[quote]Democrats are also united to ensure that the world's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.
but again, how do they plan to do this? Will they increase the budget? If so, where will the money come from? Will they seek training from other nations or do we have in-house people who are experts?
We actually used to do this in the Clinton administration, and were pretty good at it.
Again, though, a plan has been presented. Which is different than you saying that the Democrats do not have a plan.
quote:While the Republicans aren't much clearer, I see more positivity from them (the party, not the talking heads on the radio).
Of course they're more positive: they are the party in power. Their job is to cheerlead and to sell the status quo as a positive.
quote:Let's look at my voting record for president - 2 vote democrate, 1 republican. In the last primary, I voted for a democrat (he didn't get the nomination). I am the fabled "swing voter." I have no loyalty to either party and will readily vote for the party that I feel best represnts the goals that I would like to see acheived. If you want me to vote for you, you need to tell me how you will do a better job - simply telling me that the incumbent is a hack doesn't cut it. I already know that, I want to know why you are better, why your plan is more likely to succeed and how you plan on bringing it to fruition.
*sigh*
But, as you demonstrated yourself, the Democrats have offered you just what you're asking for.
Perhaps what you say you want and what you really want are different things.
quote:I voted against Kerru because he failed to do that. He was unable to convince me that he could do better than the joker already there.
I still fail to understand how the 2004 campaign led anybody to that conclusion. I have searched far and wide for something that makes sense, but, honestly, short of "Bush seems like a nicer guy," all other explainations just ring hollow to me.
quote: have no love for the Rebublicans and honestly would love to see a quality Democrat canidate. As a matter of fact, the next "quality canidate" the democrats field is very likely to get my vote as it will be the first quality canidate put forth by either party since Clinton. (Yes, I will admit that I though Clinton did a decent job, although he could have done better had he not been somewhat limited by the scandal that the republicans threw at him).
I think Gore was a much higher quality candidate than Clinton. Exponentially.
But, viva la difference!
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Okay, *now* we're getting somewhere.
You can't say they don't have plans, when, in fact, they present you with a plan.
Disagreeing with their plan is fine, but it is not the same as them not having a plan.
For the record, I agree with you on this, but I don't know what the *right* answer is.
So they have one or two "plans." The plans in question have only a few supporters because there is not much consesus on what "the plan" should be, leaving us with two plans. How can the DNC say "We have the answer" when they support two answers?
quote:
quote:We actually used to do this in the Clinton administration, and were pretty good at it.
[/qb] Maybe if they still did this, Bush would be collecting unemployment. Which brings us back to my point: While there is some dissent in the GOP, there is far more unity than I see in the DNC.
quote:Of course they're more positive: they are the party in power. Their job is to cheerlead and to sell the status quo as a positive.
but it is also positive for minority power to be positive as well. They can cheerlead and sell the changes that they want to make. What I see is negativity and bitterness, which drives voters away.
quote: *sigh*
But, as you demonstrated yourself, the Democrats have offered you just what you're asking for.
Perhaps what you say you want and what you really want are different things.
or perhaps while the Dems do give me what I want on a few issues, I feel that overall, they do not follow through.
quote: I still fail to understand how the 2004 campaign led anybody to that conclusion. I have searched far and wide for something that makes sense, but, honestly, short of "Bush seems like a nicer guy," all other explainations just ring hollow to me.[QUOTE] [Yoda voice] And that is why you fail.[/yoda voice]
It could also be because you have already decided to vote against Bush and therefore would have cast you vote for the Democrate canidate no matter who the nominated.
[QUOTE][qb]
I think Gore was a much higher quality candidate than Clinton. Exponentially.
But, viva la difference!
While I voted for Gore, one of the reasons that I like Clinton is that he always seemed to have a plan. He was also a BS artist who knew how to work a crowd, but in politics, that's an asset.
Gore I found to be rather unlikeable and still. He didn't seem to be the type to respond quickly enough to a crisis, IMO. I voted for him because I though Bush seemed incompetent.
My biggest reason for my dislike of Kerry is that he doesn't want the job he has, so why promote him? He neglected his post to run for governer, then did it again to run for president. In his Gubernatal attempt, he vowed not to stoop to "mudslinging," but ws as I recall, the first to start slinging, which makes me think of him as dishonest and a "cheat." During his presidential run, I forget the cite and exact numbers, he missed more votes than he attended, and then criticized Bush for taking "vacations" (as president, a vacation is a misnomer, it is closer to working from home. he still gets us early, get his breifings, talks to world and local leaders, except he is wearing bunny slippers), which made me think of him as hypocritical.
Had the Democrats elected anyone else, they might have got my vote (not that it mattered since the Democrats carried my state) because the incumbent was doing such a lousy job.
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Okay, *now* we're getting somewhere.
You can't say they don't have plans, when, in fact, they present you with a plan.
Disagreeing with their plan is fine, but it is not the same as them not having a plan.
For the record, I agree with you on this, but I don't know what the *right* answer is.
So they have one or two "plans." The plans in question have only a few supporters because there is not much consesus on what "the plan" should be, leaving us with two plans. How can the DNC say "We have the answer" when they support two answers?
You lost me there. The DNC does not present legislation. Kerry and Kennedy, while Democrats, are not the Democratic Party.
quote:
quote:We actually used to do this in the Clinton administration, and were pretty good at it.
Maybe if they still did this, Bush would be collecting unemployment.
Wha-?
Clinton and Bush never ran against each other, as far as I know. And Bush had a job before he got his current gig.
quote:Which brings us back to my point: While there is some dissent in the GOP, there is far more unity than I see in the DNC.
I'm sorry; I must've missed this in your earlier posts.
But so what? Why do you perceive party unity as a good thing?
quote:
quote:Of course they're more positive: they are the party in power. Their job is to cheerlead and to sell the status quo as a positive.
but it is also positive for minority power to be positive as well. They can cheerlead and sell the changes that they want to make. What I see is negativity and bitterness, which drives voters away.
It drives *you* away. Remember that the difference in votes cast for Republicans over Democrats have been pretty few, relatively speaking, over the past 5 years.
quote:
quote: *sigh*
But, as you demonstrated yourself, the Democrats have offered you just what you're asking for.
Perhaps what you say you want and what you really want are different things.
or perhaps while the Dems do give me what I want on a few issues, I feel that overall, they do not follow through.
It is nearly impossible to hit a moving target.
In this thread alone you have said you want the following things from Democrats:
1. A plan 2. Specifics on how the plan is going to work 3. Positivity 4. Party unity 5. Follow-through.
I go with "you don't really know what you want."
quote:
quote: I still fail to understand how the 2004 campaign led anybody to that conclusion. I have searched far and wide for something that makes sense, but, honestly, short of "Bush seems like a nicer guy," all other explainations just ring hollow to me. [Yoda voice] And that is why you fail.[/yoda voice]
It could also be because you have already decided to vote against Bush and therefore would have cast you vote for the Democrate canidate no matter who the nominated.
Thanks for that confidence there, DemonWolf.
Actually, I am really adept at understanding why others make decisions that I do not necessarily agree with. I can understand, for example, that people liked Bush more than they liked Kerry. That makes a great deal of sense to me. I disagree with it, but I get that there are people who value jocularity over gravitas.
But I simply cannot understand why Bush was viewed as a more qualified candidate than either Gore or Kerry.
quote: [qb][QUOTE]I think Gore was a much higher quality candidate than Clinton. Exponentially.
But, viva la difference!
While I voted for Gore, one of the reasons that I like Clinton is that he always seemed to have a plan. He was also a BS artist who knew how to work a crowd, but in politics, that's an asset.
I liked Clinton because he was a good president; even while he was signing into law legislation I vehemently opposed (DOMA, anybody?), I still think that, overall, he did a good job at staying out of the way of the country, while still guiding it in a certain direction, which I think is a very important skill for a president to have.
quote:Gore I found to be rather unlikeable and still. He didn't seem to be the type to respond quickly enough to a crisis, IMO. I voted for him because I though Bush seemed incompetent.
I've met Gore on several occasions, and I have found him to be warm, intelligent to a degree that is probably unholy while not making you feel like an idiot, engaging, and witty...the man is very funny.
And I agree about Bush's lack of skillz.
quote:My biggest reason for my dislike of Kerry is that he doesn't want the job he has, so why promote him?
If we all wanted the jobs we had, would any of us ever attempt promotion?
quote:He neglected his post to run for governer, then did it again to run for president.
Sounds like 435 members of the US Congress who have to run for office every other year.
quote:In his Gubernatal attempt, he vowed not to stoop to "mudslinging," but ws as I recall, the first to start slinging, which makes me think of him as dishonest and a "cheat."
Sorry to do it to you, but cite, please. My recollection was the utter lack of response by his campaign to the way-below-lowball tactics of the Swifties.
quote:During his presidential run, I forget the cite and exact numbers, he missed more votes than he attended, and then criticized Bush for taking "vacations" (as president, a vacation is a misnomer, it is closer to working from home. he still gets us early, get his breifings, talks to world and local leaders, except he is wearing bunny slippers), which made me think of him as hypocritical.
Bush's vacations came into question because it was during one of those vacations that he received that daily briefing from NSA about bin Laden wishing to deal a blow against the US.
We know the president whiffed that one.
Were any of Kerry's missed votes as important as that? Anything near it?
What was his missed vote record compared to his peers? More, less, about the same?
quote:Had the Democrats elected anyone else, they might have got my vote (not that it mattered since the Democrats carried my state) because the incumbent was doing such a lousy job.
I, too, wish the Democrats would have put up nearly anybody else for president. But even Kerry, who I felt was the worst of the lot, was still eminently more qualified that the incumbent, IMO.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:In his Gubernatal attempt, he vowed not to stoop to "mudslinging," but ws as I recall, the first to start slinging, which makes me think of him as dishonest and a "cheat."
Sorry to do it to you, but cite, please. My recollection was the utter lack of response by his campaign to the way-below-lowball tactics of the Swifties.
He never ran against Jane Swift for Governor. He ran against Bill Weld, so Why would Swift have used "way-below-lowball tactics?"
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
posted
Ah, I was talking about the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth," and you were talking about the governor's race...sorry.
But Kerry and Weld ran against each other for Senate, not governor.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Ah, I was talking about the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth," and you were talking about the governor's race...sorry.
But Kerry and Weld ran against each other for Senate, not governor.
Then I forget who is opponent was, maybe it was Cellucci?
Either way, I was so outraged at both canidates that I voted for myself.
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
posted
I, too, have voted for myself when the candidates are not worthy of my vote.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DWolf, Kerry ran for lieutenant governor in 1982, and he ran for the Senate in 1984, 1990, against Bill Weld in 1996, and 2002, but he's never run for governor. I think you're confusing Weld and Kerry, with that whole "neglected one office to run for another" thing -- that is one argument made against then-Governor Weld when he ran for Senate against Kerry the incumbent. You've got it backasswards, and you appear to be holding a grudge against the guy for something his opponent did.
ETA: Or, perhaps you're confusing Kerry and our current governor, who is so busy running for President that he spends more time on the road than in the State House?
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
