Stop Throwing Rocks: Americans Not So Dumb

[Arrian]

It's a common retort to Cali, because he's so transparent about it.

It also was in the context of this:

I'd love for Bush to be impeached, but I'd prefer to see him impeached for his failures on immigration than the war in Iraq.

Had the criticism of immigration policy been reasoned and sensible, I'd have responded in kind. Because I think our policy is pretty screwy too (though I think my fixes would be dramatically different than Caligasta's).

-Arrian

[Whoha]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf

It was a failure of immigration enforcement and policy, among other government failures.

During their stays in the United States at least six of the 9/11 hijackers violated immigration laws

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's a common retort to Cali, because he's so transparent about it.

So it seems obvious to you that I just hate 'leetle brown people'? Beats me why you would think that. Lord knows I've never posted any such thing.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Whoha

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf

It was a failure of immigration enforcement and policy, among other government failures.

Ah, there I stand corrected. I heard more about the FBI's bungling than the INS (I assume that's the correct agency?). They entered the country legally, as I recall... either I recall incorrectly or they violated the law after coming in. Mea culpa.

I still find it laughable that Cali thinks incompetance by the INS is a better reason to seek impeachment of Bush than any other, but I must concede the basic point that there have indeed been "failures of immigration policy" during his Presidency.

And Cali, you need not say it right out loud. It fairly springs forth from your posting, without needing to be specified.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, because supporting something a majority of Americans support is the way to lose.

Why is Pelosi trying to muzzle Conyers and other pro-impeachment Dems, then?

Once she'd gotten their attention, Pelosi met privately with several senior House members and told them they would get their committees. But she wanted it understood that she was running the place. Pelosi was especially firm with Conyers. She told him she didn't want any "out-of-control investigations," a senior House aide says; not another word about impeachment, she warned. "The impeachment talk gave the other side exactly what they wanted, which was an opening to talk about 'those liberal Democrats'," says the senior House aide. "It couldn't keep happening. We were writing their campaign ads for them."

So far, Pelosi's strategy appears to be working. The closest Conyers now gets to slamming Bush is his promise to conduct "robust oversight" of the administration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15365610/site/newsweek/page/3/

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
And Cali, you need not say it right out loud. It fairly springs forth from your posting, without needing to be specified.

Really, well that's quite an imagination you have there.

I could say the same thing about your obvious bovine necrophilia.

[Arrian]

My opinion is based upon many posts I've read of yours over the past several years. I have not conjured it from thin air. Your point is made: you assert that you don't fear or hate leetle brown people. I don't buy it. Enough said.

...

Drake: two possibilities:

1) Pelosi is smart and impeachment is indeed a losing strategy; or
2) Pelosi is a doofus who couldn't plan her way out of a paper bag.

You pick

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
My opinion is based upon many posts I've read of yours over the past several years. I have not conjured it from thin air. Your point is made: you assert that you don't fear or hate leetle brown people. I don't buy it. Enough said.

My opinion is based upon many posts I've read of yours over the past several years. I have not conjured it from thin air. Your point is made: you assert that you don't **** dead cows. I don't buy it. Enough said.

[Arrian]

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ah, there I stand corrected. I heard more about the FBI's bungling than the INS (I assume that's the correct agency?). They entered the country legally, as I recall... either I recall incorrectly or they violated the law after coming in. Mea culpa.

I still find it laughable that Cali thinks incompetance by the INS is a better reason to seek impeachment of Bush than any other, but I must concede the basic point that there have indeed been "failures of immigration policy" during his Presidency.

And Cali, you need not say it right out loud. It fairly springs forth from your posting, without needing to be specified.

-Arrian

atleast 3 of them should have been prevented from entering the country at all for making false statements on various forms. The one that convinced interviewers that even though he only had 500 bucks and a 1 way ticket he didn't intend to overstay the tourist visa was gold.

[Arrian]

The one that convinced interviewers that even though he only had 500 bucks and a 1 way ticket he didn't intend to overstay the tourist visa was gold.

Yikes. That is bad.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Tell the folks whose property is being overrun and covered with litter that it's not a big deal.

Why can't these folks hire illegals to clean it up?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes, because supporting something a majority of Americans support is the way to lose.

Why is Pelosi trying to muzzle Conyers and other pro-impeachment Dems, then?

Because the Dems are chicken****s. There is overwhelming support for ending the war and setting a timetable and the Dems won't come out in favor of that either. There is overwhelming support for universal health care. The Dems won't support it. Etc.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sikander
Obviously Foley had bigger fish to fry.

Yeah, according to Monica most American teens have bigger Johnsons than Bill's.

..............and who would know better?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because the Dems are chicken****s. There is overwhelming support for ending the war and setting a timetable and the Dems won't come out in favor of that either. There is overwhelming support for universal health care. The Dems won't support it. Etc.

I agree with the general sentiment. But since the Dems don't have a prayer of convicting W in teh Senate, and probably don't have a prayer of impeaching him, Pelosi's probably being smart. The best route here would be for the Dems to take the House, point out that they could impeach Bush and that many Americans would support that -- but then suggest, for the good of the country, that they're not going to descend to the same shabby level that the GOP did under Clinton.