Magox

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?

Seems too often that the prescribed approaches are of that of a zero-sum nature. Black or white, on one extreme you have the Joe 6's of the world and on the other you have the Cheney's. Doesn't have to be that way, everything doesn't have to be black or white, and it's like this in many solutions, which is that there are many shades of grey in between. The best answer lies somewhere within these shades. I can tell you this, your approach is the wrong one, it's the sort of thinking that helped produce 9/11. Yeah, I watched that live yesterday. Ignatius who I consider to be very knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy, certainly is a sympathizer and supporter of the president, so for him to make that assessment, carries a little more weight.

I think that answers it. In other words your foreign policy on this matter can fairly be characterized as - Create a vaccum and whatever happens, happens *fingers crossed* -

Did you even read what I wrote? Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed.

I agree with this principle. However, how do you determine a "major national security risk"? I'm assuming 9/11 in your view, falls in this category. So what could we have done before 9/11 to have prevented this? What about the reasoning that many have, that if you create a void, it's possible that it gets filled by some characters who wish and intend to do harm to the US? Is this not a valid concern? What ISIS is attempting to do is create an Islamic caliphate, don't you think this has risks to our US security interest through out the world and even possibly here? So the question is, how do we determine what a major national security risk, and how do we go about it? Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one? No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit

Yes, hence the need for a reform of the immigration system. And no "just tightening up the borders" does not constitute effective immigration reform.

I'm not going to pretend that there are some citizens that are negatively impacted by illegal immigration. However, I will absolutely unequivocally make the case that it is the countries best interest to have a more efficient and competent immigration system. We need more hard-working immigrants in order to grow, pay into S.S Medicare and be more innovative. This country is made up of immigrants, that's who we are.

To begin with, I would suggest that you don't use words that you don't fully understand. Which clearly, you don't know the meaning of the term "empirical evidence". Empirical evidence is information that justifies without question a belief. What you did was respond to a post from Chef, regarding how Obama has raised taxes in a number of areas, and then you responded derisively by saying - "I find it funny that people gripe about Obama and taxes - you gripers haven't taken the time to understand what is going on." Then you went on post a fact of average tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, in which you then responded with - "Federal receipts are pretty much at historical lows." Emphasis on "historical lows" In other words, it was a vacuous attempt to basically imply "Hey you right wingers, all this talk of Obama raising taxes, you simply don't know what you are talking about, Look at my stats that show otherwise". Of course, there is no context within those facts, such as a depressed economy and the continuation of the entirety of the Bush tax cuts in place during most of the term. Or that the ACA taxes hadn't been implemented. There is a litany of reasons for that. Secondly," The Bush 2 first 4 years are not repeatable as the tax receipts were simply too low. " They aren't repeatable? Too low? They are only too low because our level of spending is too high With this level of spending, yeah, but it certainly is repeatable if we could have a more efficient government. "RR - the god of conservatism raised both taxes and the deficit in his tenure." Is this how you make your arguments, filled with strawmen? Were there taxes raised? Yes, but were tax rates both nominal and effective Reduced? Dramatically. Also Reagan's deficit had much more to do with the astronomically high defense spending, than anything else. And one of the reason's why we won that cold war, was simply because the other side new they couldn't keep up. But that's a wholly separate topic, but it's important to add context, which is something you consistently failed to do. "So how come our taxes are so high? Because in the last 40 years the tax breaks granted to high end individuals and corporations has exploded." So THAT's the reason? Oh, so I guess DOD, fraud and waste, overall spending has little to do with it. If you were to say "a reason why....." then maybe you could have an argument. "Government spends more on Corporate Welfare than Personal Welfare" So "Spending" now also includes the absence of taxation? Wow, this is how far to the left people have moved. Amazing! Somehow, now if you aren't taxed, that is now considered "Spending". Having said that, I do believe there is too much corporate welfare, and one of the ways they can remedy that is by lowering the ridiculously high corporate tax rate. Make it the same for every corporation, with no additional tax loopholes etc. One last point: "Think 'Merica is a level playing field?" Hey, I've got news for ya, No where on this planet, is it a "level playing field" Adapt and move on. This thinking that you provide only reinforces those who are on the verge of becoming another one of the millions of people in this country who are so resigned from succeeding to now dropping out of the labor force, simply because they have been told over and over and over, that the cards are stacked against you, and you are a poor victim that needs to be sustained by the assailant's by sucking off the right tit of 'Merica'.

Sure, but who on the right is endorsing this?

Ok, so what you're saying is that you are numbskull. First off, you did imply something, which was that he was responsible for the stats that you provided, or else you wouldn't have posted them. Secondly, for the very same reason that the Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is what it is today is the same reason that health care spending increases have slown down is because of the........................... Drum roll ......... Depressed economy. So if you want him to take credit for it, then you can as long as you also acknowledge that he would be responsible for the depressed economy.

And I love me my Buffalo Bills!

They said a lot of things during the 2012 campaign. Many of them in which have turned out to not be true. Who knew? His opponent foresaw many of these very same issues that happen to be the president's failures.

More highlights of the most skilled player on the I could watch this all day..

You mean jobs such as dishwashers, busboys, agricultural jobs on the field/farms, cleaning ladies and construction?

Let me get this straight, you blamed Bush for the chaos that is occurring in Iraq that is happening under Obama's watch, then when confronted of the fact that the president was unable to renew the status of forces agreement which helps prevent this sort of chaos, you then respond that he was correct to not help prevent this sectarian war. That's fine, if you don't want to have troops at all in Iraq, I can go along with this line of thought, but to blame an ex president who most certainly would have renewed the agreement which most likely would have prevented this level of strife is beyond moronic. Oh, and I never agreed to anything with you, you have me confused with someone else.

I just found this really interesting article today, it shows some other countries styles of play and what Klinsmann's vision for what American Soccer is all about.

I suppose it was Bush's fault that he didn't secure and renew the status of forces agreement? Idiot Let's try it this way, two questions, two hints. Let's see if you are either willfully providing misleading information in order to advance a defense that is based off of a false premise, or simply that you're a numbskull. 1) Are you implying that Obama's policies have anything to do with this outcome? 2) Would you also say that because of the lower rate in health care spending that we've seen over the past couple years, that it has to do with the ACA OR...........................................?

Brat campaigned on this issue in a GOP primary. If he was running for Senate in Virginia and he was going up against a Democratic Senator, guess what? The Democrat would be running on immigration reform and Brat wouldn't even barely mention it, much less if it was a presidential election. In regards to needing more jobs, yes, but it has almost next to nothing to do with US immigration policy. The reason why we've been losing jobs is because of structural economic issues that have much more to do with of a lack of lasting job opportunities that creates more demand for products and services in this country. There is this awful misconception of those that wish to come over to the US. That they are some group of dirty Mexicans wishing to mooch off the US government. That simply isn't the case, most people that wish to come here wish to work, wish to be productive wish to integrate. They leave their countries because they lack opportunities and see ours as a somewhere they can move up the socioeconomic latter. There is an understandable anxiety amongst those in the middle class that believe that if you allow more immigrants into the country then you are taking away jobs opportunities. It's a misplaced anxiety that isn't backed up in any sort of data on a wide scale. I have a much different view than many of you here on this issue, I'm actually much more in line with TYTT on this one in that I'd much more content with a productive immigrant living in our country than a non productive citizen. That's not to say that there aren't non productive immigrant's but the vast majority are. Just about every single illegal or legal immigrant I know is someone who works. Just about every one. And I know a bunch. And there are many people that I know that are US citizens who don't do jack sh*t and complain about how hard life is etc. I tell you what else is funny, just about everyone on the right respects Paul Ryan's economic acumen. But when he mentions in great detail how we need an immigration reform for the country and it's positive economic impacts, they either dismiss it or pretend he never said anything about it. Another thing, I see on a headline in Drudge right now " PAPER: RAND PAUL JOINS AMNESTY MOVEMENT... " What a load of crock! Read the link and there is nothing in there or for that matter that Rand Paul is endorsing amnesty. Amnesty is a boogey word term for the anti illegal immigrants and It's a way to rile up opposition. But what is even worse is that it's a complete and utter mischaracterization and fabrication of his position. Marco Rubio was a darling of the right, he's been a consistent conservative on every issue, and then came out in favor of some sort of immigration reform, and now he's a "traitor", "establishment", "moderate" "Sellout". He has never recovered. They are going to do the same Paul Ryan and my guess is the same to Rand Paul. Either Rand Paul will get bashed on or he'll turn himself into an unrecognizable pretzel who would have no credibility on the matter if he ever did make it into the general elections. That's what frustrates me most, mischaracterizations and representations of the truth. Just look at the back-and-forth between you and me, I've twice now corrected your misinformation's on this subject, first you began with inflows of immigration into the country has a harmful impact on economies, when in fact it's the exact opposite, then you went to a more nuanced argument, stating that we needed a reasonable number of inflows and that we have been above what should be, when in fact that's emphatically not true. And now you are changing it once again to implying that economic conditions are weak partially due to inflows of immigrants, and that isn't true.

I think it's gonna be awfully difficult to beat Brazil in Brazil.. Having said that, in my view there has never been anyone with the ball skils of Neymar. If you are a fan of soccer, I promise, you won't regret it.

Shall I eviscerate this post, or is it possible that you may catch it before I do so?

Yes, I agree, a reasonable number. But you are Dead wrong in regards to being above that number. http://www.usatoday....growth/4248089/ That's not a "reasonable" rate of growth. Specially in a time where we NEED more people paying into S.S and Medicare.

Except what you just said is, indeed, not true. Virtually just about every study shows that population growth is essential to economic growth. One of the reasons that Japan and Europe are mired in long-term structural anemic growth is due to lack of population growth.

I agree with 83.5% of what you just said.

Conventional wisdom says it was because of his stance on immigration. Some from the right, specially coming from talk radio mis characterized his position as blanket amnesty, which of course was patently false. Then there is the counter to this narrative, that it wasn't about his stance with immigration and it had to do with him being seen as out of touch with his constituents. The backers of this narrative cite Lindsey Graham's victory in a much more conservative state than Cantor's district and polls such as this one that were conducted in Cantor's district as proof that it wasn't. Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz34KdWUCpD So which is it? Both. Even though most people in his district support some sort of reform of the immigration system, which is backed up in all polls, the ones who could support such a law aren't nearly as fervent and likely to vote on this particular issue as those that oppose it. That distinct and clear minority that oppose these principles, bottom line showed up to voice their opposition. Those that could support it, didn't. And to lump in Graham as proof that immigration wasn't such a big issue, really isn't giving a fair depiction of what could have transpired, mainly because Graham ran against six opponents, there was no singular alternative for him to face, whereas Cantor had a clear opponent, which crystallized the choice. But make no mistake, Cantor's lack of likability, questions of sincerity and being out of touch with his constituents played a huge role as well. I was reading that Cantor spent over $168k on steakhouses during his campaign, that's almost as much as Brat was able to raise. On the day of the election, Cantor was holding a fundraiser in DC. Things like this. Also as a side note, I know some tea party folks are wanting to claim victory here, they didn't win. They never stepped in and helped out with money etc. There were no politicians that I know of that endorsed Brat. As a matter of fact, if you hear Brat speak, he even basically acknowledges he isn't so much a tea party candidate. He comes across as very reasonable, he seems to be focused on the economy, and he'll most likely win the district very easily. However, if you do want to give some credit for this victory, you can give it to the talk radio spinsters. Someone like myself, and I know I'm in the minority on this board or any place where conservatives are willing to take the time to post their thoughts, but I find it to be hugely disappointing for getting some sort of meaningful reform on Immigration. And contrary to some of your views, in my view it's a net negative for the economy and the electoral landscape moving forward. I guess we'll see Obama do some sort of unilateral action within the next few weeks. And why not? Politically speaking, the country will side with him, those that will oppose it, already fervently oppose him, so no skin off his back there, and he'll gain even more popularity amongst Latino's while taking the focus off his dismal failures and incompetence. For him, it's a no-brainer. Win-Win

Have you ever seen a human pretzel before? Ask Udall if he supports the Keystone pipeline and watch him morph into one. Also, gotta love the Ny Times. As if this issue took him to the top. Maybe it had to do with him outraising him almost 5 to 1 or that Cuccinelli was viewed as too far to the right for Virginia, or maybe it had to do with the Lt Gov who is a complete loon.