I am also constrained to point out that the House did their job...

They said "NO" to legislation that the American people have overwhelmingly said they don't want...

It IS the "People's House" don'tcha know???

I understand how ya'all could forget that after the couple years that Democrats had the House and frak'ed this country up...

Michale

Yea??

Tell that to the Syrians after the flipped the US the finger and crossed Obama's red line of death...

Michale

Hahahahah, CW.

Just saw this.

Well played, sir. Well played.

I have spoken up MANY times against MANY of Bush's policies and actions...

How many times has any rank and file Weigantian spoke up against Obama's policies and actions..

Only one comes to mind... Recently, another has been added to the repertoire...

If I weren't to crack down and condemn Obama around here, no one would....

Michale

What HE said....

Michale

Regardless of the wisdom of the delay, the ABSOLUTE POSITIVELY *WORST* thing a leader can do is to say, "We don't have a plan"...

To do so is so utterly and completely moronic as to defy belief...

Michale

"In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant'. "
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

:D

Michale

CW, can ya close my attribute up there?? :(

Michale

It looks like the YES vote is pulling ahead..

We might be witnessing the end of 300 years of a United Kingdom...

As for Scottish independence, the most interesting question I've heard is: if Scotland goes independent, would it mean Britain would move it's largest sub base (now currently in Scotland), and if they balked at the cost of doing so, would they decide to get rid of their entire nuclear arsenal? I have no idea what the answer is, but you've got to admit that's a fairly weighty question.

I read the same article.. It's a thorny problem, to be sure.. Does England really NEED a nuclear deterrent??

As for the immigration thing, they're ALREADY HERE! They're already in the workforce marketplace. Whether Obama does anything to change their status or not, he's not "adding" 5-11 million workers, because they are already here.

They are already here, but they are not part of the work force.. They are an underground... Once they can legally work any job, THEN they become part of the workforce..

Put another way.. Do you think these illegals are going to be satisfied to toil away in the hot sun in fields of potatoes when they can work in an air conditioned office emptying trash cans and sweeping floors??

They are not part of the work force now...

When they do become part of the work force, minority unemployment is going to sky rocket.

And he's certainly not "adding votes" since even under the Senate bipartisan plan, immigrants wouldn't be able to vote for a MINIMUM of 13 years after it passed. Not exactly swinging the next election, is it?

And Obama has never ignored the law for political gain, right???

THAT is exactly why the Senate legislation has stalled in the House. Because Obama can't be trusted to follow the law. Even his OWN law...

You remember Joe Wilson?? Obama pledged that TrainWreckCare would never be offered to illegal immigrants...

Guess what?? It is... Joe Wilson was dead on ballz accurate.. Obama lied..

What is entirely likely is that, once amnesty is established, is that they will be allowed to vote by executive order...

Yep, he didn't have a strategy when he said it. He took the time to develop a strategy which he will be announcing tomorrow night. Get over it.

Yea, he took his time to authorize the rescue mission for James Foley and Steven Sotloff..

Guess what??

That delay got them both killed...

In matters such as these, a leader... a GOOD leader doesn't have the luxury of putting off a decision until the political winds are blowing they desired way..

That indecision gets people killed..

As has been adequately been proven...

Here's a logical reason: the CBO says it will improve the American economy, to the tune of billions of $$s in GDP. So do business leaders. The GOP is fighting hard to not improve the economy -- putting party above country.

I have already went over this with David...

The CBO scored Immigration reform..

We're not discussing immigration reform... We are discussing amnesty for criminals..

All one has to do is look at the economies of the regions that have been inundated with illegals in the recent surge to see how amnesty is going to negatively affect this country...

What else would it take for you to offer them forgiveness? I am interested to hear.

How would you feel if you came home from your vacation and found a dozen people in your home, living there, making a mess, running up your utility bills and then demanding that they be allowed to stay???

How is that ANY different than what illegal immigrants are doing to this country and it's LEGAL citizens??

Now, I have a question for you...

What are the chances that Obama will again renege on his promise and not do any kind of amnesty at all??

Michale

Or "Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall" although to be fair it was a pretty veto-proof majority in Congress that also agreed to it...

[18] -

The only two on your list I didn't recognize instantly were Marcy Captor and Brian Schatz. I'll have to look them up, because I totally agree with the rest of your list.

And yeah, I have to give credit to the Kansas Republicans who are becoming increasingly fed up with the extremists in their own party. It's a rare showing of country before party (which Michale should, theoretically, agree with, right, M?).

Michale [20] -

You're painting with too broad a brush -- something you are awfully quick to accuse others of, at times. Sure, some Dems are out for themselves. Sure, some are slimy politicians. But that doesn't negate akadjian's point, since he provided a list of those he considered above that sort of thing. If you're not going to take exception with the members on that list, then you're just blowing smoke.

As for the immigration thing, they're ALREADY HERE! They're already in the workforce marketplace. Whether Obama does anything to change their status or not, he's not "adding" 5-11 million workers, because they are already here. And he's certainly not "adding votes" since even under the Senate bipartisan plan, immigrants wouldn't be able to vote for a MINIMUM of 13 years after it passed. Not exactly swinging the next election, is it?

[21] -

Yep, he didn't have a strategy when he said it. He took the time to develop a strategy which he will be announcing tomorrow night. Get over it. Bush took a whole MONTH to respond to 9/11, I remind you. Of course, Democrats were putting country ahead of party at the time and giving him the necessary breathing room -- unlike Republicans now.

Just to get you on record, so I can remind you of it later:

Do you support attacks against ISIL in Iraq?

In Syria?

Do you think Congress should vote on it or not?

Do you think such a plan will be more or less successful if we get lots of regional partners in a coalition, or not?

Interested to see your response to those.

[22] -

You mean like Bush ignored Bin Laden his last few years in office? When he dismantled the CIA's (or was it FBI's?) Bin Laden team, because he "wasn't that big of a priority" to Bush? Again, just curious.

Here's a general rule of thumb: we liberals will start badmouthing Obama about the same time you start badmouthing Bush. How's that for a deal?

akadjian [23] -

Well said.

Michale [24] -

Can you give me one LOGICAL reason for amnesty?? Not a reason based in hysterical emotionalism or the like, but a rational logical reason for granting 5-10 million illegals amnesty???

Here's a logical reason: the CBO says it will improve the American economy, to the tune of billions of $$s in GDP. So do business leaders. The GOP is fighting hard to not improve the economy -- putting party above country.

There! That wasn't so hard!

:-)

[26] -

David Letterman's a douchebag. I'm almost certain I wrote a column about that when it happened...

Craig Ferguson is the only admirable late-nite host. And he calls himself a "late-nite douchebag" on the air, repeatedly.

:-)

akadjian [28] -

Thanks for the cites. Michale: what he said.

Michale -

Two points.

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Have you ever blown through a stop sign or red light? Fudged on your taxes? Spat in the subway? Then you are an ILLEGAL CRIMINAL. But, thankfully, there is a thing called "proportionality." The punishment is proportional to the crime.

You, obviously, put illegally immigrating at the "murder, rapist" end of the criminality scale. Others put it closer to the "parking ticket" end.

That doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong, though. What, short of deportation, would satisfy you to "pay their debt to society"? The Senate bill would have made them (1) pay back taxes, (2) prove they had an otherwise-clean criminal record, and (3) pay a fine for the sin of overstaying a visa or entering illegally.

What else would it take for you to offer them forgiveness? I am interested to hear. If the only answer for you is "deport them," then there is nothing else to say, because (1) it is a fantasy to think America's going to round up 11 million people, and (2) even Republicans haven't gone quite that far (at least, presidential candidates).

OK, I'm done answering comments!

Let's move on to this week...

-CW

Yeah, I got schooled about "overwatch" back then, too. Although, to my credit, I did at least admit the possibility:

(b) it's an obscure military term I am unfamiliar with;

[8] -

See an answer to Chuck Todd question on yesterday's column thread.

[10] -

Yeah, I saw the DWS quote. She did apologize, at least.

Michale and LizM -

Here's a better question: do you think Scotland will indeed declare independence? The polls seem to have moved, to where "yes" is now even with "no," so it could be a wild couple of weeks...

akadjian [13] -

Excuse me for being in a rather Yoda-ish mood, but that last bit could be: "Republicans say... Democrats do."

Heh.

Michale [15] -

Lighten up, this column's always been about spin! akadjian was just reinforcing that theme...

As for Scottish independence, the most interesting question I've heard is: if Scotland goes independent, would it mean Britain would move it's largest sub base (now currently in Scotland), and if they balked at the cost of doing so, would they decide to get rid of their entire nuclear arsenal? I have no idea what the answer is, but you've got to admit that's a fairly weighty question.

I gotta run. More later. I'm almost caught up on last week's comments...

:-)

-CW

We are talking about criminals. Lowlifes who's first inclination is to break the law w/o thinking about any other means or how their law-breaking has real lasting consequences for those who DO play by the rules...

I would welcome the former with open arms and would be a fierce and passionate advocate for them, regardless of their political leanings....

I would also be happy to cuff and stuff the latter, ALSO regardless of their political leanings...

Michale

OK, OK... The syntax is somewhat tortured.. :D

But you get my point...

Michale

We're not talking about immigrants.. Honest, hard-working immigrants ready to play by the rules, do things the honest way and be a functional, contributing and deserving member of society..

We are talking about criminals. Lowlifes who's first inclination is to break the law w/o thinking about any other means or how their law-breaking has real lasting consequences for those who DO play by the rules...

And there is not ONE benefit, not a SINGLE SOLITARY benefit, to illegal immigrant amnesty save one...

More votes for the FreeRide Party...

THAT is the ONLY benefit to illegal immigrant amnesty...

And it comes a a very real, very high cost to Americans..

Michale

It's not an emotional thing at all...

I am simply laying out the FACTS regarding the dangers of amnesty for criminals.

It's you who is making the emotional OH MY GODS THINK OF THE CHILDREN argument.. :D

Especially if you view them all as criminals, rapists, murderers, and drunk drivers.

Not all. But enough so that it MUST be a consideration..

The problem here is that all the Left sees is millions and millions of new Democrat voters, enslaved by promises of ObamaPhones and EBT cards and free health care...

It's funny how this seems to be your solution to everything. Call anyone you don't like a criminal.

Only when the facts support it..

As they do in this case...

I'm sorry you're so afraid of any kind of change. I do know that border states tend to be Republican. Maybe that has something to do with their problems.

No, their problem is the lawlessness on the border, fostered and encouraged by our Democrat (so-called) leaders...

But once the GOP takes control of the Senate, things will likely get better...

Gods know they can't be much worse..

Michale

Clearly, this is an emotional thing for you, Michale and no amount of facts or reasoning is going to convince you that new citizens would be good for our economy.

Especially if you view them all as criminals, rapists, murderers, and drunk drivers.

It's funny how this seems to be your solution to everything. Call anyone you don't like a criminal.

Since your mind is already made up, I guess there's no further point to this conversation.

I'm sorry you're so afraid of any kind of change. I do know that border states tend to be Republican. Maybe that has something to do with their problems.

-David

Simply not true... The vast majority of the illegals would work in low paying jobs..

The would be amongst those who WOULDN'T pay taxes but would actually get a tax refund...

Another is that this would help us attract better talent from abroad.

We are not talking about LEGAL immigrants.. We are talking about illegal immigrants. With VERY few exceptions, there is likely no talent amongst the illegals..

You seem to fear loss of jobs somehow. Do you have any evidence for this fear?

How about common sense???

If there are 1 million jobs available and, without amnesty, there are 2 million people wanting to fill those jobs and then you add 5-10 million MORE people wanting to fill those jobs.....

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there might be a jobs problem...

Economists, including the CATO Institute (not exactly a bastion of liberalism), believe that that comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue

But we are not talking about comprehensive immigration reform..

We are talking about giving amnesty to illegal immigrants..

The important thing is it would be good for the economy.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary..

What is happening to the economies of the cities at the southern border is what will happen to the economy of the country..

This truly is a "no brainer" if we can only get people past the fear and xenophobia.

It has NOTHING to do with xenophobia.. NO ONE I have met or heard about has a problem with immigrants...

NOT... ONE... SINGLE.... PROBLEM....

The issue is with criminals and rapists and murderers and drunk drivers all of the sudden being made legal...

THAT is the only issue..

Address that issue. If you can.. :D

Michale

*snort*

Probably for good reason!

Can you give me one LOGICAL reason for amnesty?

Easy. More taxpayers. It would also be a huge boost to the economy. Another is that this would help us attract better talent from abroad. There are plenty of highly skilled positions right now we can't fill because we don't have the skilled people in our country.

You seem to fear loss of jobs somehow. Do you have any evidence for this fear?

Economists, including the CATO Institute (not exactly a bastion of liberalism), believe that that comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue.

"Taking the experience of the Immigration Reform and Control Act as a starting point, we estimate that comprehensive immigration reform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years." - CATO Institute, 2012

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-12.pdf

What evidence are you basing your fear on?

I don't even care if Republicans pass it. Hell, it was one of the few things I agreed with George W. Bush on. They could then get all the political credit.

The important thing is it would be good for the economy.

-David

I just saw a bunch of comments (akadjian and Michale) which were quarantined for some reason as spam. They've all been restored, which is probably going to lead to some multiple comments over the past week.

Sorry for the hassle. New post up in a bit...

-CW

http://deadline.com/2014/09/david-letterman-lawsuit-intern-labor-laws-cbs-worldwide-pants-831063/

Government interns face the same problem here...

Of course, the interns DO get Lewinsky benefits, but the value of those are dubious at best...

Michale

You see....

That's the problem with Obama..

He doesn't care about the American people..

He only cares about the "optics"....

Michale

No. Those are people who are illegal so their participation in the labor market is under the table.. Once they become legal, they will be able to apply for ALL low end jobs, not just the under the table jobs... Also, the ones who are afraid to work because of their illegal status will now be able to enter the job market.

Can you give me one LOGICAL reason for amnesty?? Not a reason based in hysterical emotionalism or the like, but a rational logical reason for granting 5-10 million illegals amnesty???

Because when one examines the facts, there is only ONE logical reason to grant amnesty..

To mint 5-10 million fresh new Democrat voters...

Well ... Bush did take us into war. He wanted war. He wanted to be known as a "war President". And yeah, I think Dems should have fought harder against it.

But they didn't.. They went along..

That's the point you refuse to acknowledge. The first Iraq war is as much Democrats war as it is Bush's war..

Overall, Obama has done a much better job on foreign policy.

Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary...

He got bin Laden.

Really?? He shot the scumbag???

Bush's policies on torture got Bin Laden..

He didn't get us mired down in Syria.

YET...

And how did THAT work out??? Because Obama stuck his head in the sand about Syria, we now have ISIS and Russia has The Crimea and half of Ukraine...

And he's thinking about what's going to work best against ISIS

yea, he's thinking. And meanwhile ISIS is killing and killing and Killing...

Obama was "thinking" about rescuing James Foley and Steven Sotloff..

What YOU call "thinking" is nothing more than dithering and a complete and utter aversion to making a decision due to political considerations...

Leaders LEAD...

Obama "thinks"....

And people die...

Michale

Where are you getting this information?

Even if your 5-10 million number is correct, these are people who are already here in our labor market, schools, and society.

You can't add people to a labor force they're already a part of. Even many conservatives think it would be a good idea to add them to our tax base.

It was BUSH who "took us into war".

Well ... Bush did take us into war. He wanted war. He wanted to be known as a "war President". And yeah, I think Dems should have fought harder against it.

Overall, Obama has done a much better job on foreign policy. He got bin Laden. He didn't get us mired down in Syria. And he's thinking about what's going to work best against ISIS. Not going off half cocked like ... ahem ... George W. Bush.

-David

Obama's "appropriate" response to ANYTHING is to ignore it in hopes that it will just go away or solve itself..

"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it is invariably the wrong decision to make."
-Captain James T Kirk

Michale

Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary..

"We do not have a strategy for dealing with ISIS"
-President Barack Obama..

And yes, George Bush took us into war. The war didn't just start itself.

Here again.. It's ALL Bush's fault..

You completely ignore the FACT that Democrats were COMPLETELY on board with the Iraq war..

Completely.... Unequivocally... ON BOARD...

And yet, in your mind.. It was BUSH who "took us into war"...

Bush is responsible for everything..

Obama is responsible for nothing...

And when Obama takes us into war in Iraq and Syria??

You will STILL believe it's Bush's fault...

THAT type of blind faith, utter devotion to a Party is exactly what the problem is...

Michale

Bullhonkies...

A large number of Dems SAY they work for people...

I'll give you that.. Democrats can talk the talk...

But I can cite instance after instance after instance after instance where they simply cannot walk the walk..

Democrats pay GREAT lip service to being for the people.. But time and time again they prove that they are simply bought and paid for politicians...

Would you like an example???

Why would Democrats want to dump 5-10 million new workers in a job pool that is already over-saturated with workers??

Black unemployment is OVER 11%... And Democrats want to dump 5-10 million workers that will directly compete for those very jobs...

Why??? Because they need the votes...

You want another example???

Obama said on Jun 30th that, because of the southern border crisis, he is going to enact illegal immigrant amnesty by the end of the summer...

The end of the summer rolls around and Obama NOW says that, BECAUSE OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS he is going to delay the illegal immigrant amnesty until after the mid term elections...

Obama is, literally, talking out BOTH sides of his ass...

That is how Democrats roll....

Michale

I wouldn't exactly call "War!" the Republican idea of foreign policy "good".

Obama is at least capable of appropriate responses to given actions. Though I don't always agree with him, he's not trying to start the crusades. Like ... ahem ... his predecessor.

And yes, George Bush took us into war. The war didn't just start itself.

-David

Ah, well here's where we disagree.

A large number of Dems in Congress work for people. Dems like Sherrod Brown. Like Elizabeth Warren. Like Sheldon Whitehouse. Like Jeff Merkley. Like Nancy Pelosi. Like Raul Grijalva. Like Marcy Captor. Like John Conyers. Like Keith Ellison. Like Bill de Blasio. Like Peter DeFazio. Like Barney Frank. Like the entire House Progressive Caucus. Hopefully like Brian Schatz in Hawaii.

Even Barack Obama on many issues has the interests of people in mind. This, of course, is why so many special interest groups hate him.

There's only a couple of Republicans I've known who've spoken out against real corruption. Dale Schultz from Wisconsin is one.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jack_craver/dale-schultz-i-am-not-willing-to-defend-them-anymore/article_7c3598f2-ae16-11e3-8097-0019bb2963f4.html

A bunch of local Kansas GOP officials who spoke out against the gutting of school funding in Kansas by Governor Brownback is another. Dave Brat in South Carolina is another. And Jim Rubens in New Hampshire.

When Republicans are able to speak out credibly on the economy (instead of mouthing the same 'ole trickle down BS) I'll believe your claim about Democrats.

-David

None of these are in the best interest of the people of our country. All of them are, however, in the best interests of certain corporate special interests.

Ancient history..

What about here and now??? What about the messiah???

The problem is that politicians believe money is the only way to win elections. Corporate special interest groups give them the money they need. Then they expect something in return.

As an example, politicians like Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanual, Rick Snyder, John Kasich, Mike Pence, and even Barack Obama support charter schools because the outsourcing movement funds them. Not because they do any better at educating kids.

And what do all those people have in common??

They are politicians..

Saying politicians can be bought is like saying ice is cold or water is wet..

It's redundantamus extremus...

My point is that Democrats aren't any better than Republicans...

At least Republicans are capable in the foreign policy and national security areas...

Michale

To repeat: "President Clinton passed deregulation."

I could also say: "President Clinton passed NAFTA." or "President Obama supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership."

None of these are in the best interest of the people of our country. All of them are, however, in the best interests of certain corporate special interests.

Until ya'all can admit that Democrats are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution, nothing will ever get fixed.

Well, that was easy.

The problem is POLITICIANS that put their OWN interests

The problem is that politicians believe money is the only way to win elections. Corporate special interest groups give them the money they need. Then they expect something in return.

As an example, politicians like Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanual, Rick Snyder, John Kasich, Mike Pence, and even Barack Obama support charter schools because the outsourcing movement funds them. Not because they do any better at educating kids.

-David

Government doesn't shut itself down. Republicans shut it down to try and get what they want.

And Democrats are perfect and have never made decisions and policy that are contrary to the best interests of the country??

It's this type of bias that I have been combatting since day one around here..

Until ya'all can admit that Democrats are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution, nothing will ever get fixed..

There is only "Republicans say ..." and "Democrats say ..."

You mean, like you just did in your very first paragraph?? :D

The problem is not Democrat or Republican.. The problem is POLITICIANS that put their OWN interests and their PARTYs interests above the interests of the country and the interests of the American people..

Liz,

Bad idea.

I agree.. On the one hand, the will of the people and all that...

But I think the determining factor is the real world reality. It's a dangerous world and Great Britain is much stronger than England and Scotland ever could be..

Michale

A great suggestion still to this day. Things don't just happen. People make them happen.

Legislation doesn't simply not pass. Republicans block legislation.

Government doesn't shut itself down. Republicans shut it down to try and get what they want.

Jobs don't outsource themselves. American companies outsource jobs.

Rivers don't become polluted by themselves. Negligent corporations like Freedom Industries pollute them.

Economies don't simply collapse. Banks gambling with federally insured money because they weren't regulated. President Clinton passed deregulation.

Today's corporate media seems to be so afraid of offending corporate America (or is so a part of corporate America) that they seem almost incapable of talking about causality and saying A caused B.

There is only "Republicans say ..." and "Democrats say ..."

-David

What do you think about the Scotland independence issue??

Michale

Hay, CW.. If you want to award a belated MDDOTW award, that would be it... :^/

Michale

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/07/obama-on-meet-the-press-u-s-to-start-going-on-some-offense-against-islamic-state/

If you don't think we'll have boots on the ground, I have some swampland down here in Florida I wanna sell ya...

How do ya'all like your messiah now???

Michale

wonder what you thought of Chuck Todd's debut interview with Obama??

Michale

I really have to wonder if Obama can do ANYTHING right??

Once again, he has stepped on his own wee-wee..

Michale

If amnesty for criminals is so good for this country, why does Obama have to wait til after the elections to do it??

Michale

Again, one has to ask...

Do you come with a translator???

Michale

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/will-the-real-rand-paul-please-stand-up-110650.html?hp=pm_1#.VAsabmNuUXU

Liberty ? bribery.

I am constrained to point out that Democrats in Congress shared as much responsibility/blame for the Iraq War as Republicans and Bush did..

But it's rather ironic, don'tcha think??

Back think EVERYTHING was Bush's fault and Bush's responsibility..

In the here and now, NOTHING is Obama's fault.. NOTHING is Obama's responsibility...

Kick the can down the road to the next president

You mean like Obama is doing with TrainWreckCare?? :D

It's amazing, these first talking points... If you change BUSH to OBAMA and change the issues of back then with the issues of today, they STILL fit...

Uncanny, iddn't it? :D

Michale

OK, I NEVER want to hear about Obama Derangement Syndrome ever!!! :D

However, to satisfy the (then) curiousity, there IS a military term, 'Overwatch'... It denotes a high ground superiority position or one of scouting or observation..

"We could end this war tomorrow if Bush and the Republicans in Congress would listen to the public."

Yea.. We could have ended the war sooner if Bush and the Republicans had listened to Harry Reid and just surrendered as he and the Democrats wanted to do.. :^/

Michale