Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ummm, Republicans were willing to support an amnesty if Obama would increase border security first. Democrats aren't interested in a more secure border - and Republicans aren't interested in more amnesties only to be followed by more amnesties in the next decade.
Republicans were willing to compromise on somethings. Where do you get your news from, Josh Earnest?
Not true.
The Bill whch Boehner refuses to discuss would secure the border. So much for compromise.
Well, GOP, maybe next time you won't run a multi-millionaire plutocrat for president. Maybe you won't run a guy who openly expresses his visceral disgust for half of Americans.
Nah, of course you will. Carry on, boys!
True. Amazing Republicans cannot find a suitable candidate. We deserve what we got.
Not true.
The Bill whch Boehner refuses to discuss would secure the border. So much for compromise.
Not true, because you are pulling an Obama to distort what I said.
The bill that Harry Reid refuses to discuss would secure the border first and start improving it now.
The bill that Boehner refuses to discuss does not secure the border first and can easily be undone before it takes effect later on by a later congress or...president acting like an "emperor"...or if government agencies run by emperor appointees determine we don't need it.
Republicans don't want to get caught in a trap where the Democrats promise to lower spending in exchange for tax increases first and then you never get around to the cuts...ala 1980s.
The bill that Boehner refuses to discuss does not secure the border first and can easily be undone before it takes effect later on by a later congress or...president acting like an "emperor."
Yes, it would secure the border. A wall all the way through with double and triple fence at hot spots, increase electronic sirveillance, increase border patrol and authorize national guard plus more.
Yes, it would secure the border. A wall all the way through with double and triple fence at hot spots, increase electronic sirveillance, increase border patrol and authorize national guard plus more.
Those are facts. Feel free to reject them.
Once again. You are pulling an Obama - you are being highly disingenuous to my point.
Once again. You are pulling an Obama - you are being highly disingenuous to my point.
Here is your post. It is not true, and I explained why. Getting personal does not convert untruths into to truths. You keep saying Obama is a liar, and yet you keep doing what you accuse him of doing.
Quote:
Ummm, Republicans were willing to support an amnesty if Obama would increase border security first. Democrats aren't interested in a more secure border - and Republicans aren't interested in more amnesties only to be followed by more amnesties in the next decade.
Republicans were willing to compromise on somethings. Where do you get your news from, Josh Earnest?
Here is your post. It is not true, and I explained why. Getting personal does not convert untruths into to truths. You keep saying Obama is a liar, and yet you keep doing what you accuse him of doing.
Notice the word "first."
Republicans want tougher border security put in place "first."
Come on, you could tell what I was saying and you knew it up front. What do you get out of pulling an Obama and lying to us all on here. Every reader - including yourself knew what I meant and knew I was right. Readers will be less likely to take you serious if you clearly are Obamaing around on here.
Republicans want tougher border security put in place "first."
Come on, you could tell what I was saying and you knew it up front. What do you get out of pulling an Obama and lying to us all on here. Every reader - including yourself knew what I meant and knew I was right. Readers will be less likely to take you serious if you clearly are Obamaing around on here.
Just for future reference, you lose every time you get personal and start talking about posters as opposed to the topic. It is a deflection designed to conceal a weak position. You said Dems are not interested in more secure border, and yet they wrote a bill which would secure the border. Your claims are simply not true, and that's what you are trying to conceal. The other weak/untrue point you offer is the fact that GOP is willing to compromise, but that is also not true. The bill sitting on Boehner's desk is a compromise, but they have rejected it. It would give them what they have asked for, which is border security, which giving Dems what they want. Their rejection is the opposite of compromise. They offer a bill which includes ONLY they things they want and NOTHING the Dems want, and that is the opposite of compromise. You are being played and you don't even know it.
Ummm, Republicans were willing to support an amnesty if Obama would increase border security first. Democrats aren't interested in a more secure border - and Republicans aren't interested in more amnesties only to be followed by more amnesties in the next decade.
Republicans were willing to compromise on somethings. Where do you get your news from, Josh Earnest?
For instance, Obama blasted Bush for having increased earmarks on his watch - and Obama said that earmarks hurt our country. So Obama promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels by veto if necessary. Well, Obama broke the earmark $$$ record the 2 years with all Democrats in power and has already out earmarked Bush. Republicans were willing to cut earmarks -- Obama wasn't. Obama was full of BS when he made that promise to his adoring flock that truly didn't care about the words - just how dreamy Obama is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Your links are technically off topic.
You must listen to only biased news sources that reaffirm your political beliefs if you haven't heard Republicans talk of increased border security first as a condition for amnesty and immigration reform. Obama had enough Republicans to go for a compromise.
Obama could have gotten what he wanted legally - if he could learn to compromise on other things - like more border security first so we don't have the Democrats screaming for amnesty for another 5 to 11+ million in 10 to 20 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Not true, because you are pulling an Obama to distort what I said.
The bill that Harry Reid refuses to discuss would secure the border first and start improving it now.
The bill that Boehner refuses to discuss does not secure the border first and can easily be undone before it takes effect later on by a later congress or...president acting like an "emperor"...or if government agencies run by emperor appointees determine we don't need it.
Republicans don't want to get caught in a trap where the Democrats promise to lower spending in exchange for tax increases first and then you never get around to the cuts...ala 1980s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Notice the word "first."
Republicans want tougher border security put in place "first."
Come on, you could tell what I was saying and you knew it up front. What do you get out of pulling an Obama and lying to us all on here. Every reader - including yourself knew what I meant and knew I was right. Readers will be less likely to take you serious if you clearly are Obamaing around on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Just for future reference, you lose every time you get personal and start talking about posters as opposed to the topic. It is a deflection designed to conceal a weak position. You said Dems are not interested in more secure border, and yet they wrote a bill which would secure the border. Your claims are simply not true, and that's what you are trying to conceal. The other weak/untrue point you offer is the fact that GOP is willing to compromise, but that is also not true. The bill sitting on Boehner's desk is a compromise, but they have rejected it. It would give them what they have asked for, which is border security, which giving Dems what they want. Their rejection is the opposite of compromise. They offer a bill which includes ONLY they things they want and NOTHING the Dems want, and that is the opposite of compromise. You are being played and you don't even know it.
It is 100% obvious that you are deliberately ignoring the word first.
I am 100% correct that the Republicans wanted border security first as a condition of immigration reform. Something that Obama can't go back on his word later on - or something that wouldn't come after amnesty, be delayed and then never implemented by a future Democrat congress.
It is 100% obvious that you are deliberately ignoring the word first.
I am 100% correct that the Republicans wanted border security first as a condition of immigration reform. Something that Obama can't go back on his word later on - or something that wouldn't come after amnesty, be delayed and then never implemented by a future Democrat congress.
You are clearly being an Obama and being disingenuous.
Why are you destroying your integrity with these Obama-techniques?
And you are ignoring everything else you said. If you do not like Obama tactics, then why do you use them?
Let me repeat:
Just for future reference, you lose every time you get personal and start talking about posters as opposed to the topic. It is a deflection designed to conceal a weak position. You said Dems are not interested in more secure border, and yet they wrote a bill which would secure the border. Your claims are simply not true, and that's what you are trying to conceal. The other weak/untrue point you offer is the fact that GOP is willing to compromise, but that is also not true. The bill sitting on Boehner's desk is a compromise, but they have rejected it. It would give them what they have asked for, which is border security, which giving Dems what they want. Their rejection is the opposite of compromise. They offer a bill which includes ONLY they things they want and NOTHING the Dems want, and that is the opposite of compromise. You are being played and you don't even know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
