Why is wanting the United States to be overrun with Latin Americans "standing for progress"? Do you really think we need more of the people who made Latin America what it is today?
Posted by Ahrimahn at May 16, 2006 12:32 PMDo you really think we need more of the people who made Latin America what it is today?
What are you talking about a-hole? All the colonialists who made Latin America what it is today are dead!
Posted by snark at May 16, 2006 12:45 PMDo you really think we need more of the people who made Latin America what it is today?
You've got a point. All white europeans should stop breeding immediately.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 16, 2006 01:33 PMThis country would be so much better if all the racists left. just go - please.
And Steve, you are soooooo gullible for trusting bush. bush is a criminal - he's not my president. His policy is one of cheap labor for his corporate donors and you support this. Shame on you.
Posted by jj at May 16, 2006 01:52 PMjj, whl cn't spk fr stv, th trth s tht pltcs s pltcs. nd smtms vn bd Prsdnt, wh s 'gd' t thrs, my d cpl thngs 'gd' fr ths tht ht hm. Y knw ths.
S, whn Bsh my d thngs tht my b gd fr th ntn, s nxpctd s ths my b, why nt rcgnz th pth? Crp, thngs bng s thy r, wht s gd tdy my b stpd mstk tmrrw. n sch cs, vryn wld sy tht y wr crrct. n th thr hnd, w hv tht ld syng tht pltcs mks strng bdfllws.
[Editor: ignore=off]Steve, I just gotta ask:
How is sending the National Guard to patrol the border a good idea? Already depleted by Iraq, not having any relevant training, why is this a good idea? And of course, Chertoff specifically said it was stupid.
I know it might be popular initially, but really why does this make sense?
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Posted by Samuel Knight at May 16, 2006 02:07 PMfirstly Sam Knight, I wouldn't be too quick to give credit to Chertoff's opinion on anything. But in this case, he was right. It is stupid. But it is being done for politics - not policy, so it only has to fit the moment, not prove to be actually a sound decision for America. A one point gain for Bush in the polls is the desired outcome, not a sound immigration policy.
Posted by T2 at May 16, 2006 02:45 PMI find it interesting that you talk about a 55-40 vote without mentioning the party split
"In all, 36 Democrats and 18 Republicans joined with one independent to torpedo the amendment. Thirty-three Republicans and seven Democrats supported it."
You could have said, "Democrats come to the aid of Floundering Bush on Immigration."
Remember the Lieberman Principle:
You can do a lot of evil with a few Democrats and all but a few Republicans, you can do a lot of good with a few Republicans and all but a few Democrats.
Trps n th brdr mks sns f y'r plnnng n kpng th rnns t. bttr ptn wld b pn th brdr bth wys, nnx MChststn nd lbrt th pprssd frm thr lft f cntr crrptcrts.
[Editor: ignore=off]Yeah the Iranians are going to attempt an invasion. Is Bendito Koko the gorilla's pen name perhaps?
Posted by jondee at May 16, 2006 06:57 PM"Troops on the border makes sense if you're planning on keeping the Iranians out."
Is this fucker for real?
Posted by at May 16, 2006 07:00 PM