Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Democrats Prioritize Illegal Aliens Over Veterans
Topic Started: Dec 18 2013, 10:19 AM (1,408 Views)
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You are so transparent with your idiocy. lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 02:04 AM
I recall you being pissed off that GM changed the rules in your retirement. Something about medical insurance. You complained about it and rightfully so, now these guys are complaining, and rightfully so. Here is my position, if you can't afford to pay the costs of policing the world, then stop. But don't renege on promises, it's unethical.
I wasn't thrilled, but accepted the fact that a company in bankruptcy had to do what it could to stay afloat. Employees both public and private have had to make concessions. There is no reason why the military should be exempt as long as it doesn't force an undue hardship. Most all companies reduce your retirement payment if you leave younger than 62 or in some cases 30 years. No reason the military should be any different. Military retirees in their 40's can go on to a second career, and most do. With lots of opportunities in the civilian sector of the military and civil service. And, with VA provided health insurance for life too.
Edited by tomdrobin, Dec 21 2013, 01:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Dec 21 2013, 06:45 AM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 03:41 AM
campingken
Dec 21 2013, 03:30 AM
Pat,

Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to criminals? The truth is that neither side is willing to tackle tough problems. They both make promises that can't be kept and kick the can down the road.

The American voter demands simple painless solutions that don't exist. The politician either has to state that he can meet this demand or tell the truth and lose to someone who is willing to tell the voters what they want to hear.
Can't argue with you on this one Ken. My concerns are generally founded in logic. How do we pay for extending benefits and rights to millions of people when we can't pay our present bills. The left seems to think it's all simple, just raise taxes. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan is more mythology than substance as a leader. When he gave amnesty there must not have been much study or reasoning. Any social scientist would have probably told him that by granting one batch it gave hope where none existed for the next. We now have the next representing by some estimated 15-18 million. And al the consequences. Once legalized, they will apply pressure on congress to grant medicare and social security even if the law does not provide for it. There are no simple answers, the simple answer of decision making ended when Reagan pulled the trigger.
Let me say some things about the current proposal for dealing with undocumented people living in the United States.

1. It does NOT propose granting amnesty to anyone.

2. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor crime.

3. Generally misdemeanor crimes are dealt with by the use of fines and suspended sentences.

4. The current proposal calla for sins and a period of approximately 15 years to achieve ctitizenship, a rather lengthy term of probation as happens with suspended sentences for other misdemeanor crimes.

5. The question becomes why should illegal rsidents suffer greater penalties than others convicted of misdemeanor crimes?
Why should the crime of illegal immigration be treated as anything other than a felony? Again, my concern has to do with paying for the social benefits and entitlements that wil be granted down the line for these people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 11:44 PM
colo_crawdad
Dec 21 2013, 06:45 AM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 03:41 AM
campingken
Dec 21 2013, 03:30 AM
Pat,

Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to criminals? The truth is that neither side is willing to tackle tough problems. They both make promises that can't be kept and kick the can down the road.

The American voter demands simple painless solutions that don't exist. The politician either has to state that he can meet this demand or tell the truth and lose to someone who is willing to tell the voters what they want to hear.
Can't argue with you on this one Ken. My concerns are generally founded in logic. How do we pay for extending benefits and rights to millions of people when we can't pay our present bills. The left seems to think it's all simple, just raise taxes. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan is more mythology than substance as a leader. When he gave amnesty there must not have been much study or reasoning. Any social scientist would have probably told him that by granting one batch it gave hope where none existed for the next. We now have the next representing by some estimated 15-18 million. And al the consequences. Once legalized, they will apply pressure on congress to grant medicare and social security even if the law does not provide for it. There are no simple answers, the simple answer of decision making ended when Reagan pulled the trigger.
Let me say some things about the current proposal for dealing with undocumented people living in the United States.

1. It does NOT propose granting amnesty to anyone.

2. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor crime.

3. Generally misdemeanor crimes are dealt with by the use of fines and suspended sentences.

4. The current proposal calla for sins and a period of approximately 15 years to achieve ctitizenship, a rather lengthy term of probation as happens with suspended sentences for other misdemeanor crimes.

5. The question becomes why should illegal rsidents suffer greater penalties than others convicted of misdemeanor crimes?
Why should the crime of illegal immigration be treated as anything other than a felony? Again, my concern has to do with paying for the social benefits and entitlements that wil be granted down the line for these people.
Studies show that the net effect of illegal immigration is positive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 11:44 PM
colo_crawdad
Dec 21 2013, 06:45 AM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 03:41 AM
campingken
Dec 21 2013, 03:30 AM
Pat,

Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to criminals? The truth is that neither side is willing to tackle tough problems. They both make promises that can't be kept and kick the can down the road.

The American voter demands simple painless solutions that don't exist. The politician either has to state that he can meet this demand or tell the truth and lose to someone who is willing to tell the voters what they want to hear.
Can't argue with you on this one Ken. My concerns are generally founded in logic. How do we pay for extending benefits and rights to millions of people when we can't pay our present bills. The left seems to think it's all simple, just raise taxes. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan is more mythology than substance as a leader. When he gave amnesty there must not have been much study or reasoning. Any social scientist would have probably told him that by granting one batch it gave hope where none existed for the next. We now have the next representing by some estimated 15-18 million. And al the consequences. Once legalized, they will apply pressure on congress to grant medicare and social security even if the law does not provide for it. There are no simple answers, the simple answer of decision making ended when Reagan pulled the trigger.
Let me say some things about the current proposal for dealing with undocumented people living in the United States.

1. It does NOT propose granting amnesty to anyone.

2. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor crime.

3. Generally misdemeanor crimes are dealt with by the use of fines and suspended sentences.

4. The current proposal calla for sins and a period of approximately 15 years to achieve ctitizenship, a rather lengthy term of probation as happens with suspended sentences for other misdemeanor crimes.

5. The question becomes why should illegal rsidents suffer greater penalties than others convicted of misdemeanor crimes?
Why should the crime of illegal immigration be treated as anything other than a felony? Again, my concern has to do with paying for the social benefits and entitlements that wil be granted down the line for these people.
The act of illegal immigration should not be treated as a felony because the LAW defineds the act as a misdemeanor. Of course, if, as many other right wingers, you do not believe in the rule of law, I can understand your response.

BTW, the punishment for many felonies is a fine and a suspended sentence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Dec 21 2013, 11:46 PM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 11:44 PM
colo_crawdad
Dec 21 2013, 06:45 AM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 03:41 AM
campingken
Dec 21 2013, 03:30 AM
Pat,

Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to criminals? The truth is that neither side is willing to tackle tough problems. They both make promises that can't be kept and kick the can down the road.

The American voter demands simple painless solutions that don't exist. The politician either has to state that he can meet this demand or tell the truth and lose to someone who is willing to tell the voters what they want to hear.
Can't argue with you on this one Ken. My concerns are generally founded in logic. How do we pay for extending benefits and rights to millions of people when we can't pay our present bills. The left seems to think it's all simple, just raise taxes. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan is more mythology than substance as a leader. When he gave amnesty there must not have been much study or reasoning. Any social scientist would have probably told him that by granting one batch it gave hope where none existed for the next. We now have the next representing by some estimated 15-18 million. And al the consequences. Once legalized, they will apply pressure on congress to grant medicare and social security even if the law does not provide for it. There are no simple answers, the simple answer of decision making ended when Reagan pulled the trigger.
Let me say some things about the current proposal for dealing with undocumented people living in the United States.

1. It does NOT propose granting amnesty to anyone.

2. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor crime.

3. Generally misdemeanor crimes are dealt with by the use of fines and suspended sentences.

4. The current proposal calla for sins and a period of approximately 15 years to achieve ctitizenship, a rather lengthy term of probation as happens with suspended sentences for other misdemeanor crimes.

5. The question becomes why should illegal rsidents suffer greater penalties than others convicted of misdemeanor crimes?
Why should the crime of illegal immigration be treated as anything other than a felony? Again, my concern has to do with paying for the social benefits and entitlements that wil be granted down the line for these people.
Studies show that the net effect of illegal immigration is positive.
If that were true, then why are border states suffering in paying for the social expenses of the illegals? This has been a major bone of contention over the federal government's failure to enforce immigration laws, the burden is paid by the states.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 11:53 PM
Mountainrivers
Dec 21 2013, 11:46 PM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 11:44 PM
colo_crawdad
Dec 21 2013, 06:45 AM
Pat
Dec 21 2013, 03:41 AM
campingken
Dec 21 2013, 03:30 AM
Pat,

Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to criminals? The truth is that neither side is willing to tackle tough problems. They both make promises that can't be kept and kick the can down the road.

The American voter demands simple painless solutions that don't exist. The politician either has to state that he can meet this demand or tell the truth and lose to someone who is willing to tell the voters what they want to hear.
Can't argue with you on this one Ken. My concerns are generally founded in logic. How do we pay for extending benefits and rights to millions of people when we can't pay our present bills. The left seems to think it's all simple, just raise taxes. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan is more mythology than substance as a leader. When he gave amnesty there must not have been much study or reasoning. Any social scientist would have probably told him that by granting one batch it gave hope where none existed for the next. We now have the next representing by some estimated 15-18 million. And al the consequences. Once legalized, they will apply pressure on congress to grant medicare and social security even if the law does not provide for it. There are no simple answers, the simple answer of decision making ended when Reagan pulled the trigger.
Let me say some things about the current proposal for dealing with undocumented people living in the United States.

1. It does NOT propose granting amnesty to anyone.

2. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor crime.

3. Generally misdemeanor crimes are dealt with by the use of fines and suspended sentences.

4. The current proposal calla for sins and a period of approximately 15 years to achieve ctitizenship, a rather lengthy term of probation as happens with suspended sentences for other misdemeanor crimes.

5. The question becomes why should illegal rsidents suffer greater penalties than others convicted of misdemeanor crimes?
Why should the crime of illegal immigration be treated as anything other than a felony? Again, my concern has to do with paying for the social benefits and entitlements that wil be granted down the line for these people.
Studies show that the net effect of illegal immigration is positive.
If that were true, then why are border states suffering in paying for the social expenses of the illegals? This has been a major bone of contention over the federal government's failure to enforce immigration laws, the burden is paid by the states.
It is true. Illegals support the economy by spending their money here, paying payroll taxes, even though they can never collect on them, occupying rental properties, etc. It's easy to find that information with google. Give it a try.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Is that a joke? Illegals cost us money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis