[tomder55]

All those things were in the last bill but we know why it wasn't passed don't we?

There are significant differences also . One major one is that I am not interested in another comprehensive bill. We've seen where that leads ;lots of riders and pork ,and provisions that can be enforced or ignored at the will of the executive. So the Rubio plan breaks down immigration into about 5 bills ;each addressing a specific concern.
Once broken down ;there are plenty of compromises that could be crafted .
However ,I have a sense that the left will have none of that. It's never what points they should concede ;it's always where the Repubics should cave.
So ;in an act of good faith, the left should compromise on this issues that concern us. But they won't ;because as Ex has demonstrated ,they think they hold all the cards on this issue; and don't need to adjust their positions.
What that has meant to the concerned constituency is that the left can demagogue the issues whenever it is politically expedient, and otherwise ignore the issue.

[paraclete]

Tom did I just see you use the word compromise

[tomder55]

I've always been open to compromise on everything except principles. The problem is that when the word is used by the left ,it almost always means they don't budge ,but we must.

[talaniman]

I've always been open to compromise on everything except principles. The problem is that when the word is used by the left ,it almost always means they don't budge ,but we must.

The last 4 years your "principles" have wasted time by walking away from crafted bills you had input on and refused to allow votes on.

Obstruction is your principle, and blaming the other side is the tool you use.

The Republicans

Rep. Edwards: Republican Obstructionism Is Keeping America From Moving Ahead - YouTube

GOP Kills Science Jobs Bill By Forcing Dems To Vote For Porn | TPMDC

And of course I had to include an article that matches your own soaring rhetoric.

Gaming American Democracy: | John Dean | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

Narrative watch: Republican obstructionism : COMBAT!

While calling the Republicans obstructionists seems unfair—they are the opposition party, after all—the discrepancy between their principled objections and their voting records is beginning to suggest that they’re playing politics, not government.

[tomder55]

Crooks ands liars.. Combat... John Dean ? You want me to take them seriously ? If I posted something from Sean Hannity what would you say ?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I've always been open to compromise on everything except principles.

Uhhhh, can you spell out how your principles work ON THE GROUND??

Let's say we do ALL of the requirements you laid down. Can the illegals STAY, or not?

I asked smoothy the same question... He didn't answer either.

Excon

[talaniman]

crooks ands liars .. Combat ...John Dean ? You want me to take them seriously ? If I posted something from Sean Hannity what would you say ?

I would take it apart for facts and agendas. The whole point is its just not YOUR principles to consider, but the principles of others you expect them to forego for your own.

Since your sides stated goal was to obstruct, which you have done extremely well, you leave others no choice but to push back harder than you do.

We don't want to go backward to an easier time for YOU, because frankly everyone else was getting their a$$es kicked. A FACT you refuse to recognize, but vilified everyone else but yourselves in your zeal to take your country back.

Move over Jack, I worked for my fair share, so give it up! Thats our principle. We are not the second class citizens you try to make us out to be that deserve no better than you give us.

[tomder55]

Let's say we do ALL of the requirements you laid down. Can the illegals STAY, or not?

I asked smoothy the same question... He didn't answer either.

I can't answer for Smoothy . I would say a path should be made for most. For the children of course a quick path to citizenship. For the parents ;the ones who broke the law ;their path to legal residency and possible citizenship is negotiable.
No matter what you say ;their coming here screwed someone who applied legally for admission. We cannot just dismiss that fact... Like I said ,the last time we tried amnesty there was no consequences except perhaps the lawyer fee to fill out the paperwork. That meant there was no deterrence at all for someone entering illegally . This time we have to make it clear that there are consequences ;and there has to be an assurance that ANYONE that crosses the borders illegally or doesn't comply with the terms of their Visas will be removed .In return ,I agree that immigration standards should be streamlined .
However ,I would still prioritize them in a manner similar to what the Canadians do,relatives of Canadians or Canadian residents,skilled workers ,professionals ,people accepted as immigrants for humanitarian or compassionate reasons,and refugees escaping persecution .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

This time we have to make it clear that there are consequences ;and there has to be an assurance that ANYONE that crosses the borders illegally or doesn't comply with the terms of their Visas will be removed.

The point of my post was NOT to argue immigration reform with you.. But, in case you're interested, we don't agree.

The point was to ask if you guys were going to change ANYTHING of substance toward the Hispanic community, with the eye toward getting their vote.

I see that NOTHING of substance HAS changed, and that thrills me no end.

If I may be so bold, I'd surmise that YOUR principled view mirrors the Tea Party's principled view, which you said you WON'T compromise, and we KNOW the Tea Party won't compromise... So, I suggest that when immigration reform gets introduced, it won't get past the House because you STILL want to deport their grandmothers. The Hispanics who hate you now, will hate you even worse, and Hillary will be our next president.

It's been said that Hispanics are a NATURAL fit with conservative values and ideas. Just imagine what could have been.

excon

[tomder55]

because you STILL want to deport their grandmothers

And here is what I wrote .

For the parents ;the ones who broke the law ;their path to legal residency and possible citizenship is negotiable.

'
Where do you see the word 'deport' in that sentence ?

and Hillary will be our next president.

If not President ,then likely candidate . Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo are wasting their time prepping for a run. The Dems won't nominate a white guy when there are special interests to pander to.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I read it right here:

This time we have to make it clear that there are consequences ;and there has to be an assurance that ANYONE that crosses the borders illegally or doesn't comply with the terms of their Visas will be removed

Uhhh, did you mean in the future, and NOT the present illegals?

If I'm misunderstanding something, please tell me what NEGOTIABLE means.. I already said, if ALL your terms are reached, will you let them stay? If the answer to THAT question is, it's negotiable, then even though YOU'RE not willing to MOUTH the words, your position is crystal clear. You want to send their grandmothers back to Mexico.

Excon

[talaniman]

Small wonder they run from you guys like a plague. You aren't on their side.

The Dems won't nominate a white guy when there are special interests to pander to.

Unlike your side, our side has choices and options besides JUST white guys, and even our white guys know how to treat people like they want to be treated. Unlike your last parade of candidates and that includes the loony white woman, and the singing black guy who didn't have a clue as to what the planet looked like, or how many numbers there were.

Hell as rich as your final candidate was he still couldn't talk, relate or count very well himself. "White man want more money" wasn't a great platform either.

The dems and repubs have never nominated any one but a white guy ever until we broke the cycle with Obama.

So now its pandering if we don't do it again??

[tomder55]

You don't think any of our minority candidates are qualified; and if they are ,they are sell outs.

[talaniman]

Doesn't matter what we think of your candidates, nor what you think of ours. We vote for our own anyway.

[speechlesstx]

Doesn't matter what we think of your candidates, nor what you think of ours. We vote for our own anyway.

In other words, no open minds on your side.

[talaniman]

Speech, back in the day, McCain, Hatch, Dole and quite a few others had my trust, respect and some really credible ideas. But this new crop of national heads doesn't impress me nor give me any hope of bettering the lives of everybody, and the old guys have stopped being the leaders they were.

Its not so much as having an open mind, but self preservation with knowing they ain't working for me and mine. The Dem's may not be the bomb, the answer to prayers, but they don't call us the unwashed lazy undeserving nanny state masses that you guys do. Lets face it after the republican debates and shenanigans we all knew this bunch was a NO WAY.

Not easy to have an open mind when somebody starts talking about cutting programs for the poor and giving Mitt more money. Or its my fault I got laid off.

Obviously I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

[speechlesstx]

Um, it was YOU who started talking about cutting programs for the poor and giving more money to Mitt. You made it up.

[talaniman]

Where were you for the last year leading up to the last election?

[speechlesstx]

Listening to your myths.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

You DID hear the myth circulating in lefty circles about the N.M. right wing legislator who introduced a bill that would charge a mother with felony destruction of evidence, if she aborted the offspring of her rapist?

NOBODY believes that, though... It's GOT to be a myth, doesn't it? Nobody is THAT stupid or hates women THAT much that they'd do this, right?

Uhhh, wrong.

excon