Magox

Did I say that? Did you read a !@#$ing word that I just typed? Or did you just pull that out of your ass? I'm gonna go with the latter. I SAID allowing them to serve in the military and going to college. THAT'S WHAT I SAID! Now if you want to equate going to college and serving in the military as "waving a wand" and voilaaaa jobs appear, well then thats your problem.

Simply put, by allowing a higher percentage of them a pathway to citizenship. I think most of us can agree that citizens obviously have advantages for gainful employment over illegal aliens. Therefore they aren't in a position to contribute to society as much as legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are hamstrung in the jobs they can perform, for obvious reasons. Which is why they mainly work in menial sorts of labor, such as cook assistants, dishwashers, agriculture etc. Allowing a gateway to citizenship, such as serving in the military and allowing the children of certain illegal aliens to attend college is a productive way of integrating such illegals into our society so that they can become even more productive.

Without a doubt, and Santorum complains "The media only wants to talk about this issue when they speak with me" Well then stop talking about it on your stump speeches you dip ****! But, that's his plan. He wants to pit the media vs his social conservatives. He knows much like Gingrich that the hard right get riled up on this issue, so Even though he is talking about social issues, he tells the very same people hes campaigning to that its the lefts obsession that they want to concentrate on these issues, EVEN THOUGH He's stumping on it! And the sad part is that these people he's campaigning to, are believing it.

In many cases, yes. I'm not an absolutist, don't believe in it, and happen to believe that its a deeply flawed way of thinking. Are there cases to be made for more protection at the border? Absolutely. Are there legitimate arguments that it does cause certain sectors of state government budgets to go deep in the red? Yep. On the otherhand do alot of these illegal immigrants create more favorable employer conditions? Yep. Do some of these illegal immigrants help us with population expansion which is critical for economic growth (See Europe)? You better believe it. Do illegal immigrants bring in added sales tax revenues? You betcha. What the future of the conservative movement needs is more inclusiveness. From a social standpoint, alot of these latinos are very socially conservative, they can be brought under the tent, but if you alienate them, make them feel like they are a bunch of wetback fence hopping drug pushers that create economic chaos, then they will run over to the Liberals. And do you blame them? So the solution involves inclusivity, protection of borders and integrating them into our society through legal means. Which of course would add more tax revenues. That's the solution.

It's pretty hypocritical of Santorum to make that point. Every day I see him talk, I like him less and less.

It's the tone, the rhetoric, the overexaggeration of the perils of illegal immigration that I dislike. Latino's generally speaking, don't want to be part of a party that demogogues them. There are more effective and constructive ways with solving this issue, the party has steered super right on this issue, and it's a losing issue. The best thing they could do is go along with the Dream Act and add in a few provisions such as tightening up the border and this E verify idea. And to stop talking down and demogoguing latino's. The claims from the right are wildly overexaggerated both from the economic and violence standpoints. That's a fact! The left creates boogeymen and so do the right. The lefts boogeymen are more like "If you don't pass this bill 'babies will die' " or "If you don't pass this bill 'seniors will have no healthcare'" The rights boogeymen are "If we don't go into this country, the religious fanatics are gonna come after us" or "If we don't secure the border, more people are going to die because of Mexican drug dealers" It's all a bunch of bull ****! Just like Jeb Bush said, which is that the candidates are "appealing to people's fears" Thats true. I hate seeing it, why? Because it is an issue that doesn't play well in the general elections,and rather than people focusing on what they truly should be focusing on, which is the economy and debt, you will get the shallow segment of the population focusing on these lesser important issues.

Santorum's view on this is a precise reason why he would get clobbered in the general elections, which I disagree with vehemently, and I just hope that the the primary voters realize this before they cast their ballots. I can't stand this sort of ideology. Having said that Obama's economic and handling the debt policies scares me 1000 times more than Santorum's social stances. And I just hope the John Stewart/American Idol segment of our population realizes that at the end of the day, it's the economy and the debt that matters more than what this shallow segment of our population obsesses on, which is of course these social issues, oh and if the candidate wears a sweater/vest.

I'll tell you how you know that the Politico Poll is an outlier, they show that Romney is down 22% amongst Independents vs Obama 49% vs 27%. Ok, I think we can all agree that Romney has lost some support from Independents, but 22% down against Obama Here is a poll that came out today, So you have 3 recent polls, two have Romney up and One Obama obliterating Romney. You have one that shows Obama up by 22% among independents,Rasmussen shows Romney up by 9%, the Gallup Poll doesn't show, but it has an even larger overall lead for Romney over Obama so you can rationally conclude that independents are siding with Romney by more than 9%. So you tell me which one from an objective POV is MORE of an outlier, the two polls that show Romney up by around 10% or the one that shows Obama up by 22%? Rasmussen btw, has been one of the more favorable polls for Obama this year when you look at his approval ratings. Check out the RealClear Politics polls and you can see it there.

No offense taken, Fact Check got their information from GAO , that's about as credible as you are gonna get. So who do you believe, now be honest here, do you believe the DNC or GAO?

I don't get how two polls can be so vastly different than one another. USAToday/Gallup Poll which obviously is one of the more well known polls has this to say: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1 And there is this, from Politico's/George Washington Poll Both of these polls were conducted roughly during the same time period. Very odd Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73308.html#ixzz1nah4dH6R

Is that solid enough?

I believe that we as a country should be more inclusive and that the rhetoric from the right to be too divisive. Whether you like it or not, there are a few realities regarding immigration, one the net gain from an economic standpoint outweighs the costs incurred from illegal immigration, two in order for there to be meaningful growth, population growth through immigration is a key part to making that happen and three from a political standpoint, the latino population is the fastest growing population in the US,and if the conservatives want to win elections moving forward, they better start gameplanning a strategy that includes them in their tent. Jeb Bush gets it, and so does Marco Rubio. And I hate watching these primaries, specially this one, simply because the tea party without a doubt has driven the conservative movement a few notches to the right, so everyone is trying to prove that they are more conservative than the guy next to him (except Ron Paul of course). It's a turnoff. And for many people, specially in the age of the American Idol society, people look at these issues almost if not more than they look at who can run this economy better. Like I said, if the focus can stay on the economy, ROmney wins, he is vastly superior to Obama when it come to handling the economy and the debt, if the Obama campaign can divert the attention away from the economy (which they will desperately want to) and steer it towards social issues, how Repubiclans are stuck in the dark ages, immigration, how Romney hate poor people and wants to protect his wall street buddies and that he waxes poetic about trees being the right size, then Obama wins.

Yep, on this issue he is

The GOP is on the wrong side of this issue.

Told ya, a mindless meat puppet that defends anyone who has a D in front of is name.

Idiot

The only constant here is that people on this message board from every spectrum of the political aisle, whether it be from the right, the left and the middle all believe that you are a fact hating blithering idiot.

I choose Romney because he is supremely qualified over Obama in just about every economic metric fathomable. You on the other hand are for Obama because he has a D in front of his name. Some people go home and punch the punching bag to let loose, I decide to verbally eviscerate DiN. Different strokes for Different folks.

You're a fact hating dipshit. Plain and simple.

Listen you little sniveling snotnose, I know you have a hard time between distinguishing opinion and fact, so to be better assist you with your deficiencies, what John McCain provided is what we call a political opinion, what the GAO provided was information based on facts. comprende? However, since you hate facts, which FACT CHECK just provided, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

I usually tip about 20% if its really bad service, from there it goes up.

Of course it will, the CBO projections are based on current policy and if things moved ahead according to plan, which they won't of course, odds are the debt will be much worse than the CBO projects. FYI, so far the debt has been worse than the CBO has projected every year since the president has been in office.

No I didn't dipshit. Which is why I posted it He said "it's hard to say" in other words, he doesn't know.

OMG Dude, either say something or just don't say anything at all. I don't know if I've ever seen someone say nothing as frequent as you do. Really

Seems like I'm always correcting you, I mean I know you like hate facts and stuff but here you go. FROM FACT CHECK So lets review here, since we know you hate reading facts that don't support your narrow views. 1) The $1.3 Billion that was received, $342M was directly related for Olympics 2) $960 Million was going there regardless of the Olympics 3) Out of the $342 Million, $185M was for security, NOT INCLUDING extra security costs as a result of 9/11, which from any rational thinking person (Not you) would believe that millions more would of gone towards extra security. Funny how your criticism sounds like a DNC talking point. I guess that pretty much reinforces what I've been saying all along, you are mindless, fact hating, DNC talking point parrot. Now thats from those guys called FACT CHECK. And we know you hate Facts, so my guess is that you won't accept their results, since you know, you hate facts and stuff.