November 25, 2014 at 10:10 am
Norm Kelly says:
How does one have an intelligent conversation with someone who starts THEIR side with a false premise. And it's even more difficult to have an intelligent conversation with said person when they REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE that they start with a false premise. Chris does this all the time when he blurbs for the N&D. His argument sometime starts from the premise that conservatives dislike the occupier because he's black or mostly black. First, he's a racist. Second, he's a socialist. We conservatives can disagree with, oppose, the current occupier because he's a SOCIALIST and because he's a RACIST, without ever caring that he's a mostly black man. We can ignore this because we have so many MUCH MORE important reasons to disagree with and oppose him. Yet libs and media ally types (often the same group) continue to tell us that we oppose the occupier because he's black. Same old tired used worn out failed garbage coming from libs trying to tell us what conservatives are doing wrong instead of trying to understand what they themselves are doing wrong that they keep losing elections!
Same thing is happening in this post. The premise in the first paragraph is completely false. So, when starting with an outright lie, a distortion of the truth, fabricated storyline, it means the rest of the post/editorial will be full of useless garbage information cuz they will simply be trying to support their false premise in paragraph one. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who refuses to be intelligent to start with. Telling lies to my face, refusing to admit that you are telling lies, means that the intelligent conversation has already ended. This is just more proof that libs have nothing useful to contribute, their only option is to lie about specific situations, lie about their opponents, and continue to tell American voters that we are stupid. (again, not my words but the words of leaders of the socialist party and it's supporters.)
The occupier DID NOT challenge 'congressional Republicans to do something about immigration'. The occupier took extra-Constitutional steps to override the will of the people. The occupier chose to violate the LAW of the land and take action on his own, that is, in his own words, outside the scope of his authority. I know, when he told us he wasn't a dictator he wasn't talking about making changes to immigration law. When he told us he wasn't a dictator he was specifically talking about changing immigration law. These are obviously two very different topics. So his statement about being a dictator doesn't apply to this situation. You see, since they are different topics and situations, that time he couldn't be a dictator, but this time with a different situation, he actually CAN BE a dictator. It's the stupidity of the American citizen that fails to draw a distinction between when he can't be a dictator and when he can be a dictator.
Instead of working with Congress to get ANYTHING done with enforcing immigration, securing the border to make it much harder for illegals to wander across the border and then be taken care of by our government, the dictator decided this was a case where working outside the law, as a dictator would do, is allowed by the US Constitution. A single man, he decided our Constitution says, actually DOES have the authority to change law, to dictate, and to be above the law. Which pretty well describes a dictator and NOT a president. The only challenge put out last week by the occupier was a challenge to Congress to reign him in. Choose to put him back in his proper place OR decide to let his dictatorial decree stand. The challenge is to do something legal to stop him from being above the law and working outside the law.
'who have lived for more than five years in the United States'. How is this determined? Do we simply take the word of these people that they've been here for 5 years or more? Why wouldn't people who have already demonstrated a willingness to break laws, to violate the sovereignty of our nation, also choose to lie when asked the simple question of how long they've been here? It's obvious the occupier is relying on Congress NOT filing a lawsuit against him, and he's relying on the stupidity of the average American legal citizen! How does this editorial respond to this lawlessness? Telling those of us who care about our country that we really are stupid!
Lindsey Graham is only half right. Shame on Republicans for not being united on taking action. Yet, MORE BLAME is due to the Demoncrat Party. They refuse to do ANYTHING to secure the southern border. The demon party INSISTS that amnesty come first, and in some out year in the future, they would consider securing the border. This is a non-starter for anyone who is truly concerned about border security and national sovereignty. It's time that the demon party stepped up with some HONEST, USEFUL agreement on how to do something constructive with border security. We've tried it the lib way of allowing a one-time amnesty program without securing the border. What we end up with is more illegals crossing the border illegally, with the response from the Socialist Party that we need to do something about all the illegals, like amnesty. When the libs INSIST that border security WON'T happen, they are setting us up for MORE AMNESTY in the future. Again. And again. And again. Libs are NOT willing to try anything new, then they blame Republicans for not wanting to do ANYTHING. Kinda like the ally writer of this editorial. Blame Republicans because the DEMONCRATS refuse to take logical, productive action.
'trying to protect Democratic candidates'. Cuz that is the most important thing for any lib - protect the party first, worry about the nations health somewhere else further down the list. Party first presents all kinds of problems. But libs want us to concentrate on the fact that Americans are stupid. Cuz they set policy based on this belief. They have admitted this, it's not some racist claiming this.
'The ploy failed'. Wow! Who would expect a lib ally to admit this. Except the wording is wrong. Properly stated, this would read 'The SCHEME failed!'
Refuting ramblings of libs is easy. It's one of the most frustrating parts of any conservatives day, but it sure is easy. Try to start every one of your writings/conversations with facts, and libs are lost immediately. They have no way to respond because they refuse to recognize what facts are, they have no facts to base their side on, and it immediately shows the lie of their ramblings. Having an intelligent disagreement with a lib is impossible. The challenge is the border SHOULD be secured first. Then we can worry about implementing national sovereignty laws. Make it harder for business to hire illegal aliens and we won't have to worry about deporting millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS, they will deport themselves! Which is even better than the occupiers amnesty plan. And better than the inaction by the demon party in the Senate. Which MIGHT explain why voters across the country CHOSE to replace demons with Republicans. And this didn't just happen in states where efforts to disenfranchise black voters occurred. (might as well fight the racist response right out of the gate!)
November 28, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Rip Arrowood says:
Stop overlooking the real solution...don't make it harder for business to hire illegal aliens. Make it harder on businesses that DO hire illegal aliens.
It's time for those who break the law when they hire these workers to have to bear the blame.
November 29, 2014 at 11:41 am
Richard Bunce says:
So it is more important to punish employers who break the law rather than the employees who break the law? I agree government should not and cannot try to punish people who have yet to break the law... that would eliminate most of the government regulations that place a significant burden on all citizens and residents... but to have two parties breaking the law but only punishing one of them is selective enforcement... at least you have the Executive in place that would foolishly attempt to do that sort of thing.
