I guess that shows the conservative mindset - compromise is betrayal.

I guess that shows the liberal mindset - conservatives are bad lol

My big question is exactly how people are going to rationalize the argument that 'we' (citizens of the US) need to fix Mexico's problems in order to solve our immigration problem. I'm not opposed to the idea, in fact in principle I think it speaks very highly of our country if we can wield our power for the benefit of others. However, we've been ousted from the position of benifactor in most cases that of a sort of perverse UN. It's <I>assumed</I> that we should go in and fix other peoples problems. Of course after we spend billions of dollars and hundreds of lives in the problem country we are sent packing with no reparations whatsoever and a warning that we had better not try anything sneaky. Frankly I think we should take an extended hiatus from our role as global bitch, and simply enforce our own rules, protect our own assets, and do a proper job of not meddling where we don't belong.

Of course this also means stopping our billions of dollars worth of 'aid' to the worlds war lords and dictators.

Conservatives press for something horrible, and liberals give them something bad.

Good point 9th engineer, but even then, we can fix our side of the border in any way we want, we can make it more difficult to cross the border, we can do as tw says and create a truely free market in the United States, but even then, the problem of illegal immigration into the United States will still be there.

There are those that think that illegal immigration is only caused by solely economic reasons, and yes that does play a part, but there are also causes within the originating country which we in the U.S. cannot fix. Ultimatly, Mexico will have to take responsibility for thier own problems and inequalities which are driving their citizens to cross illegally into the U.S. To say the U.S. and it's policies are responsible for the flow of illegals is only looking at one small part of the problem. Of course, indirectly the policies of the U.S. are drawing people here illegally, but it isn't the policies you may think. Instead they come here because as they are right now, our immigration laws as well as our society are promoting illegal immigration. First, if a person is successful at getting into our country illegally, they can either steal someones social security number fairly easily and get a job or just do work "under the table". They run the risk of getting caught, but the INS does not have the resourses necessary to go after everyone, so unless they are caught at the border by the border patrol, they will more than likely go for some time without raising too much suspicion. Even then, if they do end up getting caught, what is the worst that will happen to them? Well if they haven't broken any more laws in the US, then they get a slap on the wrist and a free ticket back home, just so they can come here again. So this tells us that we are not strict enough, not consistent enough, and not providing our enforcement agencies with enough resources to effectively do their job.

Also, with the political and social climate the way they are in the US today, now more than ever is there an incentive to come illegally to the US. To do it legally costs money and time, but with talk of amnesty and other "paths to citizenship" makes it much easier and cheaper to do it that way. Also, the disconnect between agencies of the government as well as the relative ease for illegals to recieve government assistance and healthcare not only cost us millions each year, but also take away from what could be used for legal citizens. And of course, because of the high standard of living and the relative laxness and ease that I mentioned already make the US an ideal place for them to come. Now, if the socioeconomic environment of the US were similar to that of Mexico for instance, don't you think that people trying to escape Mexico would instead go somewhere else?

Thanks, I'll reserve to myself judgement on when I've been betrayed.

If liberal support for DOMA and DADT are "compromise", they're awfully hard to distinguish from a careful crafted blend of betrayal, denial, hypocracy, expediency and disingenuousness.

I know the "religious" right is openly homophobic...but at least it's open. That's easer to confront and combat.

It certainly would be novel if people went to the voting booth with the intension of doing what's best for the country instead of making "me/myself/I" the center of the universe. :eyebrow:

I certainly don't think liberalism is "what's best for the country". YMMV.

I have no doubt about that.
Is that because you pick up the paper, turn on the news or just look around, and like what the Conservatives have done for this country in the last 6 years?:right:

My memory's actually longer than six years, so I have a basis for comparison. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer; I remeber how the liberals played when they were in the game.

It's scary to think of how the last six years would have fared in liberal hands. Al Gore on 9/11? Please. And I voted for him, too.

Combat? By doing...?

Missionary work, for one thing. Interestingly, we encounter much less discrimination among the right wing gun nuts than we do among the liberal queers.

Just think, there wouldn't be 150000+ US troops in the middle east causing the biggest strategic fuckup since operation AJAX! how terrible!

And who could be more on the sidelines than young Jag here...


Hey! Who let you shoot their AK? I'm thinking about getting one for my birtyhday.
It's either than or a KelTec Sub-2000. I can't afford a PS-90 or a tricked-out M1A.

My memory is longer than yours and I've never been on the sidelines, so don't tell me about history.
Gore might have surprised you/us by gathering a consensus rather than following a script written back in the 90s......but I didn't vote for him. ;)