Talk radio does not represent American views - right or left.

 

However, it seems that Trent might be OK with it when Rush et al are making noise about bills/issues he's OK with so I question his credibility on this issue of talk radio.

Talk radio does not represent American views - right or left.

Are you an authority on American views? If so, I have to ask how you obtained your credentials. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If Rush and company did not represent American views, how do you explain how they manage to stay on the air on commercially supported stations without being artificially supported by PBS or American Public Radio?

 

I actually agree with much of what Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, G. Gordon Liddy, Boortz and others have to say. They make far more sense than many other voices in the media.

This just goes to show you how worthless conservative talk radio is. They hold their tongues when disasterously anti-conservative legislation and policy is foisted on the American people (Medicare drug entitlement, steel tariffs, shameless Federal spending, tax cuts during "wartime"). And they throw an absolute hissy fit when a reasonable compromise to the problem of illegal immigration is proposed. What do these bloody idiots think we're going to do--literally round up and deport 12 million people (many of whom now have children who are American citizens by birth?).

 

I honestly think so-called conservative gasbags like Limbaugh deep down want this bill to fail because they want to keep the status quo--an inexhaustible supply of cheap, unregulated labor from south of the border for business interests.

This is not a reasonable compromise. I could accept worker visas but NO ONE who has entered the country illegally should ever be a citizen under any circumstances. I also would not accept the visa until there is measureable proof that the border can be controlled so that we don't have this same debate 20 years from now, just like we are after that last amnisty bill that was supposed to solve the problems of illegal immigration.

I don't understand. Trent Lott is a Republican.

I realize that.

 

Lott has just jumped on the talk radio bashing because most host don't agree with the immigration amnisty bill.

 

Leftys have been tryinr to diminish it's influence for years.

 

My question was addressed to Ram54.

Are you an authority on American views? If so, I have to ask how you obtained your credentials. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If Rush and company did not represent American views, how do you explain how they manage to stay on the air on commercially supported stations without being artificially supported by PBS or American Public Radio?

 

I actually agree with much of what Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, G. Gordon Liddy, Boortz and others have to say. They make far more sense than many other voices in the media.

 

You cannot be so naive as to believe that ratings in a prime ADVERTISING demographic equate to the viewpoints of the majority of Americans.

 

Secondly, if you think Rush and friends represent the majority of Americans, how do you explain the last election? Did all of the Rush fans forget to vote?

 

Lastly, if you switched the names Franken for Rush, my opinion would be the same so before anyone tries to go right vs left, save it.

You cannot be so naive as to believe that ratings in a prime ADVERTISING demographic equate to the viewpoints of the majority of Americans.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Looks like I hit a soft spot... :lol:

 

Is that any more naive than believing slanted poll after slanted poll conducted by a biased media? Or for that matter, believing what the so-called "mainstream media" have to report on much of anything?

 

Secondly, if you think Rush and friends represent the majority of Americans, how do you explain the last election? Did all of the Rush fans forget to vote?

I can explain it by the fact that with the help of a biased mainstream media, and the liars in Washington D.C., the American people grew weary and were seeking a change.

 

The recents actions of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, et. al. have only assured that not only did we not get the changes we were promised, we actually got more and worse of the samething we're already tired of...

 

If you think this past election was something, just wait until the next one. I predict that Nancy Pelosi and company will be picking out curtains for much smaller offices... and there is no democratic candidate for president that can possibly win.

 

How's that for naive?

 

Lastly, if you switched the names Franken for Rush, my opinion would be the same so before anyone tries to go right vs left, save it.

Oops... looks like I couldn't help myself... :sssh:

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

This makes no sense. Nobody but the jokes in DC we call politicians like this bill. You really need to take a closer look at this bill and see what Bush and Kennedy are trying to force feed us. The only thing it guarantees is that our borders will be wide open.

 

 

How so? I've looked at the bill

 

• 18000 new border patrol agents
  
• 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing along the U.S. Mexico border
  
• 70 new ground-based radar and camera towers along the U.S. southern border
  
• Deployment of four unmanned aerial vehicles
  
• Stop releasing illegals upon apprehension
  
• Facilities to detain up to 27500 illegals per day
  
• Added identification tools to prevent unauthorized work
  

 

What should be done to make our borders more secure that is not included in the bill?

 

Furthermore, I just can't see how conservatives are complaining that this bill does not go far enough to beef up border security. Prior to January, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Which means they could have passed the "right" legislation (whatever that means) and stiffened enforcement of current laws. If this is such a huge issue now, what the heck have they been doing the past six years?

 

One other thing, to say nobody outside of DC likes this bill is a bit inaccurate. A CBSNews/NY Times poll taken late last month showed widespread support for passing the immigration reform bill before the Congress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/25/opinion/polls/main2851959.shtml That support was not a function of party politics, as both the Democrats and Republicans surveyed were solidly in favor. Earlier in this thread, you said that our government had become one of, by, and for the politicians. If this bill or something very close to it doesn't make it into law, I'd say your statement is right on the money.

This is not a reasonable compromise. I could accept worker visas but NO ONE who has entered the country illegally should ever be a citizen under any circumstances. I also would not accept the visa until there is measureable proof that the border can be controlled so that we don't have this same debate 20 years from now, just like we are after that last amnisty bill that was supposed to solve the problems of illegal immigration.

 

Then what should we do with them? I'm not in favor of people breaking our laws, BUT I'm also a pragmatist and I just don't see how it is remotely practical to try to round up and deport 12 million people. Where do you deport them to? They didn't all come from Mexico. Who pays to ship them to (wherever)? What do you do with the dependent (read children) family members who were born here and are (by our laws) bona fide U.S. citizens? The legitimate practical questions just go on and on. It must also be realized that we have 12 million people here illegally not only because they broke the law but because we quite consciously failed to enforce it. Besides, as I understand it, this path to citizenship or amnesty is a very expensive proposition for those seeking it.

Aren't we all, at least at some point on our family tree, here because this was a better place???

Then what should we do with them? I'm not in favor of people breaking our laws, BUT I'm also a pragmatist and I just don't see how it is remotely practical to try to round up and deport 12 million people. Where do you deport them to? They didn't all come from Mexico. Who pays to ship them to (wherever)? What do you do with the dependent (read children) family members who were born here and are (by our laws) bona fide U.S. citizens? The legitimate practical questions just go on and on. It must also be realized that we have 12 million people here illegally not only because they broke the law but because we quite consciously failed to enforce it. Besides, as I understand it, this path to citizenship or amnesty is a very expensive proposition for those seeking it.

 

I don't think we could get all of them, but I think we could get a pretty good percentage of them. Through the courts, various license agencies, medical offices, banks, employers, etc. At some point, illegals come into contact with someone who is in authority here, and then they are returned to sender.

 

Costly? You bet. But I'd be willing to bet not as costly as the cost of housing, medical care, et. al. being provided to illegals in the States right now.

 

Draconian? Probably. Don't really have an answer to that.

 

Big-brotherish? Yes. I would need some pretty safe assurances that the types of practices utilized in a roundup would then not be a slippery slope to legal citizens.

 

Yes, we have to a large extent enabled the behavior. So what? As most good contracts say, failure to enforce any provision of this agreement in a timely fashion does not act as a waiver to future enforcement.

 

I'm not here to be a nice guy. This either needs to be a purely business proposition for the U.S. or it doesn't. I want to read an economic analysis of it, a good one. If it costs more to deport them then keep them, lets not waste the money and lets find a way to make something on the deal. If it costs more to keep them than deport them, then lets get started. Call me cold.

 

But, doggone it we need to patrol our borders and I know that is budgetable.

Aren't we all, at least at some point on our family tree, here because this was a better place???

 

Unless your kith and kin hailed from Georgia. Then they came because they were a prisoner.

This just goes to show you how worthless conservative talk radio is. They hold their tongues when disasterously anti-conservative legislation and policy is foisted on the American people (Medicare drug entitlement, steel tariffs, shameless Federal spending, tax cuts during "wartime"). And they throw an absolute hissy fit when a reasonable compromise to the problem of illegal immigration is proposed. What do these bloody idiots think we're going to do--literally round up and deport 12 million people (many of whom now have children who are American citizens by birth?).

 

I honestly think so-called conservative gasbags like Limbaugh deep down want this bill to fail because they want to keep the status quo--an inexhaustible supply of cheap, unregulated labor from south of the border for business interests.

I listen to these guys all the time and they spent alot of time railing against the Medicaid drug entitlement and the out of control federal spending. They strongly support tax cuts...

How so? I've looked at the bill

 

• 18000 new border patrol agents
  
• 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing along the U.S. Mexico border
  
• 70 new ground-based radar and camera towers along the U.S. southern border
  
• Deployment of four unmanned aerial vehicles
  
• Stop releasing illegals upon apprehension
  
• Facilities to detain up to 27500 illegals per day
  
• Added identification tools to prevent unauthorized work
  

 

What should be done to make our borders more secure that is not included in the bill?

 

Furthermore, I just can't see how conservatives are complaining that this bill does not go far enough to beef up border security. Prior to January, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Which means they could have passed the "right" legislation (whatever that means) and stiffened enforcement of current laws. If this is such a huge issue now, what the heck have they been doing the past six years?

 

One other thing, to say nobody outside of DC likes this bill is a bit inaccurate. A CBSNews/NY Times poll taken late last month showed widespread support for passing the immigration reform bill before the Congress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/25/opinion/polls/main2851959.shtml That support was not a function of party politics, as both the Democrats and Republicans surveyed were solidly in favor. Earlier in this thread, you said that our government had become one of, by, and for the politicians. If this bill or something very close to it doesn't make it into law, I'd say your statement is right on the money.

If everything in this bill would be enforced as stated I think there would be a great majority of the country supporting it. However, we went through this before in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was supposed to help the country deal with the 2.5 million illegals in the country. All the enforcement in that bill was never enforced, illegal immigration exploded by at least 5 fold. Now another 'comprehensive' bill is here 20 years later and we are supposed to trust these guys?

Then what should we do with them? I'm not in favor of people breaking our laws, BUT I'm also a pragmatist and I just don't see how it is remotely practical to try to round up and deport 12 million people. Where do you deport them to? They didn't all come from Mexico. Who pays to ship them to (wherever)? What do you do with the dependent (read children) family members who were born here and are (by our laws) bona fide U.S. citizens? The legitimate practical questions just go on and on. It must also be realized that we have 12 million people here illegally not only because they broke the law but because we quite consciously failed to enforce it. Besides, as I understand it, this path to citizenship or amnesty is a very expensive proposition for those seeking it.

Please point out to me where in my post I ever said deport them. Excuse me for thinking that when I said I could favor worker visas (meaning they could stay) but not citizenship that what I really meant was deport them all. How stupid of me.

 

And let me VERY clear about this, I really don't care how expensive it is to follow the rules to citizenship legally. That is not, nor should it be part of this debate. This bills basically pushes those from all over the world that have followed the rules to the back and that is wrong.

I don't think we could get all of them, but I think we could get a pretty good percentage of them. Through the courts, various license agencies, medical offices, banks, employers, etc. At some point, illegals come into contact with someone who is in authority here, and then they are returned to sender.

 

Costly? You bet. But I'd be willing to bet not as costly as the cost of housing, medical care, et. al. being provided to illegals in the States right now.

 

Draconian? Probably. Don't really have an answer to that.

 

Big-brotherish? Yes. I would need some pretty safe assurances that the types of practices utilized in a roundup would then not be a slippery slope to legal citizens.

 

Yes, we have to a large extent enabled the behavior. So what? As most good contracts say, failure to enforce any provision of this agreement in a timely fashion does not act as a waiver to future enforcement.

 

I'm not here to be a nice guy. This either needs to be a purely business proposition for the U.S. or it doesn't. I want to read an economic analysis of it, a good one. If it costs more to deport them then keep them, lets not waste the money and lets find a way to make something on the deal. If it costs more to keep them than deport them, then lets get started. Call me cold.

 

But, doggone it we need to patrol our borders and I know that is budgetable.

 

On the bolded part we are in complete agreement.

 

Regarding the economic analysis, I haven't seen one either. I just think about the mind-boggling magnitude of 12 million people and begin to think about the logistics of such an endeavor. That is equivalent to the combined populations of New York City and Los Angeles. It would easily represent the largest mass movement of people in this country since World War II, when we had a far more efficient system for moving such large numbers (the passenger railway network). And, seriously, what do you do with the left-behind belongings and financial arrangements these people had made? Cars, household goods, contracts? You could say just confiscate everything, but it would certainly require resources to disposition. Sounds like a lot more big government to me. And again, what do you do with the kids of these folks who are U.S. citizens? Huge problem. I think the so-called path to citizenship idea makes a lot of sense because it requires illegals to pay their equivalent back taxes as a condition of becoming legal. It is not really a free pass.