Hello:

Speaking about the truth hurting the righty's, catch this:

I was deeply involved in my daily dose of Brit Hume and his cadre of neo-cons, Bill Kristol, Morton Kondrake, and Fred Barns, when I spit my coffee all over the TV. I love those guy's, don't you?

They were talking about Elliot Spitzers about face regarding the issuance of a drivers license to illegals. In the midst of telling us how it would never work politically, and how dumb the Democrats are, Kondrake actually said that the program is WORKING in the states where it has been instigated.

Really, I about choked.

Of course, we can't expect our leaders to actually do something that works now, can we? Especially if he's a Democrat??

excon

Yeah if I was an illegal I'd love to have an official document saying to all who sees it that I am an illegal.

Which states is he talking about .Kondrake is sometimes the contrarian of the panel .Other times it's Juan Williams.

Spitzer did an about face and Hillary a retreat before tonight's debate because his license idea is a dumb one... and everyone can peel away the b.s. to see that they are trying to get their own version of voter fraud for their benefit .

Hello again, tom:

Well, this is problem K, that would be fixed if congress did the job we hired them to do, which is FIX problem A - illegal immigration. ANY solution beyond fixing problem A, is only a stopgap measure and bound to fail.

However, in the face of the congress NOT doing its job, the states are filling in the gaps. What? They shouldn't?

In THIS instance, if you are the state who is charged with providing SAFE highways for your residents, and your job has NOTHING to do with immigration, then I think it's wise to try to get ALL the drivers in your state licensed and insured.

That's what I think. That's what Spitzer thought. And, that's what Kondrake thought.

excon

I think excon is 100% right with his comment. The states feel that they need to fix a problem that is not being addressed properly in congress.

I also think that Spitzer's idea was a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, this is problem K, that would be fixed if congress did the job we hired them to do, which is FIX problem A - illegal immigration. ANY solution beyond fixing problem A, is bound to fail.

However, if the face of the congress NOT doing its job, the states are filling in the gaps. What? They shouldn’t?

In THIS instance, if you are the state who is charged with providing SAFE highways for your residents, and your job has NOTHING to do with immigration, then I think it's wise to try to get ALL the drivers in your state licensed and insured.

That's what I think. That's what Spitzer thought. And, that's what Kondrake thought.

excon

---

Hey, ex. Be careful mixing coffee with electronics--liquid tends to let the smoke out of the wires.

I agree with you: Congress ain't doing diddly about Problem A: Illegal Immigration. We may differ on our solutions, but at least WE can see that it is the source of the problem. Too bad they can't.

And yes, in the absence of federal leadership (on a federal issue, no less) is it really any wonder that the states are scrambling to find some solution, ANY solution?

While I think some of the proposed solutions range from feasible to idiotic, I am less concerned about them than the fact that the feds aren't getting the message that THEIR work is being done by others.

Spitzer's solution was asinine . Here's a lesson for Spitzer and Congress. Listen to the people . If Washington wasn't trying to shove a shamnesty down our throats via closed door backroom dealing ,then they would realize that the people overwhelmingly want the solution to begin with enforcing the existing laws.

Well over 75% of NYers (the bluest of the blue states) opposed his plan and he dare pawn it off on shrill politics . What that demonstrates is the arrogance of the man. If Spitzer feels he has to act because of federal negligence then let him adopt tough anti-illegal immigrant laws to discourage the illegals from settling in the state .

The states and local governments more often then not conclude that the their solution is to offer sanctuary and other acts to inhibit the enforcement of the laws . I say any state that does so should forfeit a share of their homeland security funding .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

Hey, ex. Be careful mixing coffee with electronics--liquid tends to let the smoke out of the wires.

I agree with you: Congress ain't doing diddly about Problem A: Illegal Immigration. We may differ on our solutions, but at least WE can see that it is the source of the problem. Too bad they can't.

And yes, in the absence of federal leadership (on a federal issue, no less) is it really any wonder that the states are scrambling to find some solution, ANY solution?

While I think some of the proposed solutions range from feasible to idiotic, I am less concerned about them than the fact that the feds aren't getting the message that THEIR work is being done by others.

---

I read somewhere that it's also hard to "get snot off of a flat screen moniter." :D

I think the fact that the feds aren't getting the message IS problem A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

In THIS instance, if you are the state who is charged with providing SAFE highways for your residents, and your job has NOTHING to do with immigration, then I think it's wise to try to get ALL the drivers in your state licensed and insured.

---

Ex, I have to admit to mixed feelings over granting DL's to illegals at the present. A Hispanic woman with no DL and no insurance that spoke very little English rear-ended my wife's car a couple of weeks ago. Don't get me wrong though, my reaction was far from thinking if Texas would only give them DL's it wouldn't be costing me a $250 deductible. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Spitzer's solution was asinine . Here's a lesson for Spitzer and Congress. Listen to the people

---

Hello again, tom:

If the leadership reigns AREN'T going to be picked up by those who we THOUGHT were leaders, then WE THE PEOPLE will pick them up.

That's the state we find ourselves in. Given that void, the leaders look to the masses for their leadership. Huh? Something is wrong with that equation. They shouldn't be asking us. They should be leading us.

I agree with you absolutely, I think they should listen to me. After all, I'm one of the people. Now, I don't disagree with your percentages of those who agree with my position and those who don't. I'm sure I'm in the minority. That's not the point. The point is, we should have leaders who lead. If we did, the people would follow. Of that, I have no doubt.

I also have no doubt that as long as the leadership vacuum continues, the problem will too. My problem is that I see nothing new on the horizon - nowhere - not even Ron Paul.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

A Hispanic woman with no DL and no insurance that spoke very little English rear-ended my wife's car a couple of weeks ago.

---

Hello Steve:

Nuff said.

excon

PS> Stick around. You're my best back up.

Well we all know Spitzer's leadership on this issue. He is a poodle of Evita.

From Hardball last night :

Quote:

---

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you know if Hillary Clinton had anything to do with Governor Spitzer's decision to do his 180?

FRED ER: Yeah, we believe she did. We were told -- I was told -- at a very high level in New York politics that Mrs. Clinton's campaign or some of her top people signalled to Governor Spitzer's people that he had damaged her. They were wondering what the heck he was up to, why did he bring it to the floor now, and made it clear that the governor was hurting her and he ought to back down if he wanted to help her, which he says he wants to do.

MATTHEWS: Is anybody in his office saying that, or are you getting that from a third party? Is anybody in Spitzer's office saying that the governor got the word from Hillary to cut it?

ER: In his camp, but not his office. But at the highest levels.

MATTHEWS: Well how does it work? Did she send word through New York politicians that it was hurting her?

ER: Well first of all Spitzer's a very smart guy and he's aware of what happened. Secondly, they travel in similar circles. High-level consultants talk with one another. The governor's political consultants and advisors were advised as to the damage that was done here. That's how it was related.

---

This at the same time that Hillary made this statement

Quote:

---

"I support Gov. Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal. His difficult job is made that much harder by the failure of the Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive immigration reform,"... "As president, I will not support drivers licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration, including border security and fixing our broken system."

---

This on the eve of the next Democrat debate where they both know Hillary's flip-flopping on the subject will again be raised as an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Nuff said.

excon

PS> Stick around. You're my best back up.

---

I'm sure it wasn't intentional :D

You do have one good point about Federal Responsibility

U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You do have one good point about Federal Responsibility

U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"....

---

So what is your definition of invasion?


Invasion to me is what happened on 9/11. Invasion is what is going on in Iraq. Invasion is not a family trying to make a better life in a new country. If it is then my Irish family invaded America. Shame on them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You do have one good point about Federal Responsibility

---

Hello again, tom:

One's better than none.

excon

Tuscany an invasion can be a simple as an uninvited intuder .

Did your Irish relatives bum rush the border ?No... More likely they waited at Ellis Island like my Irish ancestors so they could be properly processed before they were allowed into the country .

So, what does the accident prove?

a) she's illegal and shouldn't be here in the 1st place rear-ending cars

OR

b) once she's here, if she gets a license and mandatory insurance your wife is all set.

Then there's c:

c) could she afford the insurance?

Hmmm - many illegals allow business owners to turn a much higher profit by working hard and charging less and generally going medically uninsured (nevermind car insurance)... I wonder - if we hire - should we insure? This is a tough one.

excon,

What does "working" mean? What are these drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants accomplishing? What did Kondrake mean when he said that it was "working"?

Does working mean that these people now have licenses and nobody challenges their status? Does it mean that we now know who these people are? Does it mean that these illegals are now insured drivers? Does it mean that they are now able to vote and obtain government aid? Does it mean that they now have the ability to get a job for which they are not legally entitled?

Without a clear understanding of what these programs are supposed to accomplish and WHAT OUR GOALS ARE, how can we determine whether a particular program is working or not?

My goal is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA. My goal is to make sure that people who are not supposed to be here aren't being treated the same as people who should be here. My goal is to make sure that people aren't breaking the law. My goal is to not give preferential treatment to criminals over those who obey the laws when they come here.

How do drivers licenses for illegal immigrants accomplish any of these goals? And if they aren't accomplishing any of those goals, then what goals are they accomplishing? What makes anyone say that such a program is "working"? Working for whom? Working to do what?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Excon,

What does "working" mean? What are these drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants accomplishing? What did Kondrake mean when he said that it was "working"?

Does working mean that these people now have licenses and nobody challenges their status? Does it mean that we now know who these people are? Does it mean that these illegals are now insured drivers? Does it mean that they are now able to vote and obtain government aid? Does it mean that they now have the ability to get a job for which they are not legally entitled?

Without a clear understanding of what these programs are supposed to accomplish and WHAT OUR GOALS ARE, how can we determine whether a particular program is working or not?

My goal is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA. My goal is to make sure that people who are not supposed to be here aren't being treated the same as people who should be here. My goal is to make sure that people aren't breaking the law. My goal is to not give preferential treatment to criminals over those who obey the laws when they come here.

How do drivers licenses for illegal immigrants accomplish any of these goals? And if they aren't accomplishing any of those goals, then what goals are they accomplishing? What makes anyone say that such a program is "working"? Working for whom? Working to do what?

Elliot

---

It’s been estimated that there are 1 million illegals’ in New York…what’s the cost of obtaining a license there? Do the math…that’s a bunch of bucks if only half the number coughed up the money.

Another thing that bothers me is that behind the notion is the assumption that illigals’ would buy a license. What purpose would it serve them to pay in order to identify themselves as illegal?

DC,

Ahhh!! So we get to Spitzer's real intention... state revenue in the form of license fees.

And you are right about your second point too... who wants to pay for the ability to identify oneself as an illegal when you can do it for free without a government-issued ID card? And who would pay for car insurance when they can get away without paying for it because they are illegal?

Who would buy what they can get for free?

Elliot