What Reagan said about a border wall

For those who wonder why I’m a Republican, let’s take a look at what the term used to mean back when I was a kid.

This is what Ronald Reagan said about immigration and border security when running for President in 1980:

Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then, while they’re working and earning here, they’d pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. They can cross. Open the borders both ways.

That’s right. Reagan’s approach to working with Mexico was to “open the border both ways.”

While reviewing Reagan’s comments, look at what George Bush, the senior Republican in the state of Texas at the time was saying about how to treat those here illegally:

If they’re living here, I don’t want to see…six- and eight-year-old kids being made, one, totally uneducated, and made to feel like they’re living outside the law. Let’s address ourselves to the fundamentals. These are good people, strong people. Part of my family is Mexican.

What makes these comments even more striking is the context. Reagan and Bush made these statements when they were competing for the Republican nomination in 1980.  Better yet, this exchange happened during a debate in Texas just before the Texas primary. Freer borders and providing an education for undocumented immigrants was the platform that both Republican candidates thought they needed in order win over Texas Republicans.

A generation later, why such a stark change? Back then, Dixiecrats like Rick Perry were still Democrats while the Elizabeth Warrens of the world were still Republicans. That’s what’s changed.

More detail and the actual footage from the debate where that occurred is available from our good friends at Reason online.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Immigration
235 comments on “What Reagan said about a border wall
  1. EJK says:

    Reagan also said the 1986 Amnesty was one of his greatest mistakes.

  2. kabuzz61 says:

    I hope you all have a very happy and safe Thanksgiving. We will live to fight another day. 🙂

  3. Bobo Amerigo says:

    TThor, did you actually write this?

    “the man is a disgrace to the office he holds and a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy.”

    A clear and present danger?

    I’m thinking by now you might be a little embarrassed by this phrase?……

  4. Bobo Amerigo says:

    I love this blogsite.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I added a smooch as if it were an html tag but apparently the system didn’t like.

      So SMOOCH to you all and have a terrific Thanksgiving.

  5. kabuzz61 says:

    Tex, please kindly refer to Title 8 CFR §274a.12: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=a36287b6ad0d18ca1e9fe91a4d6997ba&ty=HTML&h=L&n=pt8.1.274a&r=PART#se8.1.274a_112

    There is nothing in the law as implemented by the CFR that gives the president the authority to grant employment authorizations (work permits) en bloc to an entire category of illegal aliens. (The president does have the authority to do so on a case-by-case basis, but that’s gonna take a while for 4+ million people.)

    Prosecutorial discretion is by its very nature intended to be applied on case-by-case basis. Stretching things a bit, prosecutorial discretion can be applied to small groups of people. 4+ million people does not constitute a small group of people. The president’s executive order thus constitutes legislation by executive fiat and is therefore unconstitutional.

    The tragedy of all this is that it’s going to take the courts quite a while to correct the president’s illegal action. That will put the status of millions at further jeopardy, and effectively leaves them in limbo.

    As a result of the president’s action, the GOP-controlled legislature will have zero impetus to address the status of resident illegal aliens until Obama leaves office, or until SCOTUS strikes down his overreach. Instead, the GOP will likely send the president piecemeal bills, e.g. a bill addressing only enhanced border security. They may not even bother with that, given this president’s proclivity for selective enforcement and implementation.

    You’ve got to hand it to Obama; it’s hard to imagine how he could have come up with a more divisive or irresponsible action. I honestly thought I would never live to see a worse president than Carter. But where Carter was simply inept, Obama is actively destructive to the institutions of our Republic. Obama’s actions are actually far more egregious than, for instance, those of Nixon during Watergate. Nixon simply broke the law; Obama is subverting the rule of law. Obama has descended to a level that puts him into a class by himself.

    The above is from Tracy who commented further down. Well thought out and very clear understanding of what Obama’s actions has done.

  6. bubbabobcat says:

    Harry Reid sells out Obama and Democrats yet again but Cappy still delusionally complains they are “buddies” in his abject irrational hate for Democrats of all stripes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/business/congress-nears-deal-on-major-business-tax-breaks.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

    Tax cuts negotiated by Reid’s lackeys and Senate Republicans would benefit car-racing tracks and racehorse owners but gut and kill renewable wind energy subsidies and shades of Romney’s disdain and total disregard for the “47%”, kill tax breaks for “a permanently expanded earned-income credit and a child tax credit for the working poor.”

    And why did the “mature” and “compassionate Republicans” do that?

    “Republican negotiators announced they would exclude those measures as payback for the president’s executive order on immigration”.

    Yup, taking their ball and going home. Again.

    What was it that buzzy just said? “What you liberals say? Fuck it. Who cares.”

    Apparently buzzy was merely blindly and obsequiously toeing the wingnut party line. Yet again.

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Encore.

  7. texan5142 says:

    Since it is thanksgiving tomorrow,

  8. texan5142 says:

    Tracy Thorleifson says:
    November 25, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    “Under Obama the rule of law, and thus our Republic itself, is a dead letter. The man is a disgrace to the office he holds and a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy.”

    Your unbridled hate is showing. You do realize that Obama has issued the fewest executive orders in 100 hundred years. So does this mean every president who have issued executive orders are a “disgrace to the office he holds and a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy.”

    • Crogged says:

      At least it’s colorful, well written, hypocritical nonsense.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        tthor”s words are pure poetry, but I prefer the straight talk of a certain Captain Sternn, even if I don’t necessarily agree with either of them.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        As for you, Crogged, I confess I often have to read your posts twice to understand them, with their stream-of-consciousness style.

    • Crogged says:

      Accusing the sitting President of treason is a boring Greek chorus and I prefer blank verse.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Of course the old and tired talking points comes out. It is not the number, it is the essence. Executive Orders were never used to change law.

      • texan5142 says:

        There it is folks, Obama is doing the same thing every other president has done, but kabuzz does not like the “essence” of this president we he does it.

    • Let’s see if I grok your thought process (using the term loosely), Tex. I disagree with Obama’s actions, therefore I hate him. Gee, does that imply I’m a racist, too?

      As for the emperor’s executive orders, it’s not the quantity that rankles, it’s the content. To nullify separation of powers, all it takes is one. I believe O’s latest fills that bill nicely.

      Hate the sin, not the sinner, Tex. 😉

    • BigWilly says:

      I try to keep my hate strictly bridled, though if it’s bridled it’s probably about to leave the barn.

  9. BigWilly says:

    Back in Houston again, I suppose I’ll just get used to it.

    This is like a tennis match. Two men, facing each other over a net, with rackets and a green ball. Forehands backhands, and not much love.

    One side center right, and the other center left.

    Choosing whether to enforce or not seems to be kind of at the President’s discretion. That’s nothing new. So the other party will sue. The law will take its course. I will live with the outcome.

    Either way I’m not too worried.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Discretion yes but where does the power of amnesty come in???

      • texan5142 says:

        Anse says:
        November 25, 2014 at 3:55 pm
        Kabuzz, giving people a three-year deferment is not “amnesty.” They’re still not citizens. And this EO does not put them on a direct path to citizenship.

        Can you read cat, as Anse said above.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Okay, let’s get semantic. Where does it say he can issue 3 year work permits? Where did that law come from? Or did he make it law?

      • texan5142 says:

        Work permits are not amnesty last time I checked.

      • Tex, please kindly refer to Title 8 CFR §274a.12: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=a36287b6ad0d18ca1e9fe91a4d6997ba&ty=HTML&h=L&n=pt8.1.274a&r=PART#se8.1.274a_112

        There is nothing in the law as implemented by the CFR that gives the president the authority to grant employment authorizations (work permits) en bloc to an entire category of illegal aliens. (The president does have the authority to do so on a case-by-case basis, but that’s gonna take a while for 4+ million people.)

        Prosecutorial discretion is by its very nature intended to be applied on case-by-case basis. Stretching things a bit, prosecutorial discretion can be applied to small groups of people. 4+ million people does not constitute a small group of people. The president’s executive order thus constitutes legislation by executive fiat and is therefore unconstitutional.

        The tragedy of all this is that it’s going to take the courts quite a while to correct the president’s illegal action. That will put the status of millions at further jeopardy, and effectively leaves them in limbo.

        As a result of the president’s action, the GOP-controlled legislature will have zero impetus to address the status of resident illegal aliens until Obama leaves office, or until SCOTUS strikes down his overreach. Instead, the GOP will likely send the president piecemeal bills, e.g. a bill addressing only enhanced border security. They may not even bother with that, given this president’s proclivity for selective enforcement and implementation.

        You’ve got to hand it to Obama; it’s hard to imagine how he could have come up with a more divisive or irresponsible action. I honestly thought I would never live to see a worse president than Carter. But where Carter was simply inept, Obama is actively destructive to the institutions of our Republic. Obama’s actions are actually far more egregious than, for instance, those of Nixon during Watergate. Nixon simply broke the law; Obama is subverting the rule of law. Obama has descended to a level that puts him into a class by himself.

      • johngalt says:

        Section 11 from Tracy’s link:
        “(11) An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive;”

        Is this not what Obama has done? Issued a directive that a certain class of alien is eligible for deferred action and would therefore be authorized to work “under conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive”?

  10. Somewhere far below I made a comment to the effect that my thinking has changed since the 1980-86 time frame. Some elaboration is perhaps in order.

    As a twenty-something in the ’80’s, my primary concern was for the people I knew personally who were affected by immigration law, especially the young men I ran cross-country with in high school (in the Phoenix area). My sympathies were with them, and I didn’t understand why such good people should be at risk of having their families split up, parents deported, etc. My sympathies were with them.

    As a business owner over the last twenty years I’ve come to know a different set of immigrants; it’s been my pleasure and honor to sponsor five individuals on their path to citizenship. I now understand what a struggle it is to immigrate legally, how expensive and time consuming it is. I’ve had to make special arrangements to have one individual work remotely from their native land while awaiting for a visa renewal for a visa that expired due to lax performance by the INS, not due to any fault of their own. After having worked alongside such individuals for many years, understanding how much fortitude it takes to complete the process, and how much they prize their citizenship once earned, my sympathies are now with them.

    If we are to be a nation of laws and not men, then our laws must be applied equally to all, including immigrants (both legal and illegal). It is simply ***UNJUST*** to arbitrarily confer the benefits of citizenship (or even just legal status) on one group of people for the sake of political expediency, while arbitrarily denying the same to others. If for no other reason (and there are plenty of other reasons), Obama’s immigration decree is an obamination for that alone.

    • flypusher says:

      “It is simply ***UNJUST*** to arbitrarily confer the benefits of citizenship (or even just legal status) on one group of people for the sake of political expediency, while arbitrarily denying the same to others. ”

      So then Congress has a golden opportunity to act and the GOP to offer something tangible and realistic on immigration. Get to bill writing, people!

      • Fly, it seems to me now more than ever that bill writing under this President is a fool’s errand. Obama will simply veto any Republican-sponsored bill that arrives on his desk without a Senate super-majority behind it. And even if a veto-proof bill does land on his desk, Obama has *repeatedly* demonstrated that he simply ***WILL NOT ENFORCE*** any portion of any law he disagrees with.

        Under Obama the rule of law, and thus our Republic itself, is a dead letter. The man is a disgrace to the office he holds and a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy.

      • CaptSternn says:

        True that, TThor. Harry Reid protected Obama from well over 300 bills, but he has been fired from that job and is about to be shoved out the door come January.

        I only hope that the republicans step up and start sending bill after bill to Obama, including bills to secure the southern border among many other things. They have about 18 months to expose the left for what it is, as if the past eight years have not already done so. They better get on board with the tea party movement, or they will lose big in 2016 and things will get much, much worse.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        “Under Obama the rule of law, and thus our Republic itself, is a dead letter. The man is a disgrace to the office he holds and a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy.”

        Those are some pretty twitchy boles that are clutching their pearls awfully tightly.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        TTHOR, that is why I commented that liberals do not believe in obeying or enforcing laws. Nary a one is against this unconstitutional power. Except for maybe George Stephanopolus.

        We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no gray area. We are a representative government or we are not. Obama not only declined to enforce the law he changed it.

      • flypusher says:

        Think longer term Tracy. Perhaps Obama would veto a fair and reasonable bill because of politics, perhaps not. Up the ante. If he does veto it, the GOP has some prime ammo for future elections. If he doesn’t, there’s credit to be rightfully claimed in those elections.

        Oh, and I do realize the sticking point in this little plan, which is actually drafting legislation that offers realistic fixes without being loaded with all the partisan poison pills that politicos are so fond of. Simple idea, very complicated to pull off.

        Sternn, which Tea Party candidate flips which states in the Blue Wall??

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fly, what is “realistic”?

      • Fly, I have little doubt the GOP will submit a slew of bills for Obama’s veto or subsequent executive branch chicanery, for the express (and only) purpose of creating “prime ammo for future elections.” Unfortunately, passing laws for the purpose of governance is a pointless exercise with Obama.

      • flypusher says:

        Tracy, if “we don’t like Obama” is the only thing driving the GOP, ’16 and beyond will look even worse for them.

        As for realistic, start with revisiting the bill that was killed by hysteria in 06-07. I also would be fine with the concept of the Dream Act if the bar was raised.

        It hasn’t escaped my notice that no one has answered the question of which Tea Party champion flips which states in the Blue Wall.

    • goplifer says:

      It kinda seems like we saw exactly the same stuff and learned diametrically opposite lessons from it…

      Why should the immigration process a source of grinding misery that can consume the better part of someone’s life? Why not change that?

      • Chris, American citizenship is just about the most precious thing on Earth. It *should* be earned by those who come seeking it. As the child of a man who did earn it, I can say that that my father treasured his American citizenship for more than most birthright citizens.

        Other than the bureaucratic snafus encountered, I would not change the overall process. It should be applied to all who seek citizenship, regardless of how long they might have domiciled here illegally.

      • Crogged says:

        I suppose the aristocratic gene from the Brits will never leave our cultural DNA. We were born into citizenship, the others must earn it (and pay us too).

        Below you posted a WSJ journal opinion piece with the subtitle of ‘executive power never imagined by the Founders’, another complaint of how the world has changed for the worst since the Andrew Jackson presidency. The Founders never imagined any of women voting or instant electronic communication or eating crawfish and their lesson to us isn’t the magic words they wrote but the example of reasonable men agreeing peacefully in governing themselves in the spirit of equality and justice. You suffer no loss in allowing gardeners, laundry attendants and construction grunts having the same privileges you were born into, except to imagined constructs of ‘respect for law’.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Crogged you make no sense. Your comparison’s aren’t even in the ball park. The discussion is presidential power.

      • Crogged says:

        Which executive power doesn’t bother you in the least when we send our sons and daughters to die in hell holes because of ‘American interests’ but causes a frenzy when the least of us are given something precious we take for granted because we were born into it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, somebody had to make sacrifices before us so that we ended up being born here. Much like parents or grandparents that built up wealth for their offspring and descendants would be better off. Look at what some Chinese parents are doing, saving up and getting a tourist visa so they can be in the U.S. when the woman gives birth, then they go home. They made a sacrifice and took the effort to give their child the advantage of U.S. citizenship.

        FYI, the president is the Commander in Chief, that means he can order the military into action. And yes, our interests, our way of life, our national security, sometimes demand that the military be sent into action. Again, that comes down to some making sacrifices so that others may enjoy security and freedom. The sad thing about that is that many of those people that get to enjoy those things without making the sacrifice don’t appreciate what they have and want to throw it away.

      • Crogged says:

        Who is ‘throwing anything away’? What are you losing when the construction worker becomes a citizen-what is it you are really afraid of? We can do as the links below suggest if we just grow a pair and realize that you aren’t sending 11 million people home and money in hand now is better than waiting for it. Two grand, no felonies for five years and you become a full citizen. Make it easy for those here to become citizens, despite your worries of how they will vote to pay themselves to sit at home and not learn English. Show the world you really want skilled people to come here despite whatever smelly food they like.

        http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/21/skilled-but-excluded/

      • CaptSternn says:

        Not only is that rewarding criminal behavior, it is a slap in the face of all those that have taken the time and made the effort and sacrifice to come here legally. People that come here illegally should never be granted citizenship. They have already shown that they have no respect for our nation or our laws.

      • Crogged says:

        Thank you, Cain, for your defense of the laws handed to us by Moses, or immigration laws written when we were afraid of Eyetalians and Catholics.

      • Crogged says:

        And let’s make one thing real freaking clear, neither you nor anyone writing on here speaks for those naturalized citizens and their feelings regarding getting ‘slapped in the face’. You have no clue and need to quit projecting your feelings on an imaginary audience.

      • johngalt says:

        One of my employees, an eastern European with a U.S.-earned Ph.D., got lucky through the visa lottery and got a green card. My university would never have sponsored her for one unless she were full time faculty, which she was not. She had to be ready to attend an interview on 10 days notice in the capital of her home country. This interview could not be done near her home in the U.S., and involved traveling 7,000 miles with a 3 year old and infant. The process, from beginning, to end took more than a year. What idiocy.

      • goplifer says:

        Exactly. And she’s one of the lucky ones because there actually IS a process by which she can immigrate, which is very rare.

        A close family friend married a Scot. They wanted to come back to the US, but he had a very heavy engineering job that they depended on for their livelihood and she was a teacher.

        It took three years just to get a permit so he could work temporarily in the US. The process was not merely burdensome, it was bizarre, incredibly expensive and at times downright humiliating.

        I watched the same thing happen with friends from Bosnia who came here as refugees during the war. They still can’t get their parents here.

        Complete and utter madness.

      • Crogged says:

        It is beyond baffling that when presented with real opportunities to dismantle FEDERAL bureaucracies that those who speak the loudest about the pernicious dangers of government control want to do the least about it. I’m the squishy liberal and willing to fire hundreds/thousands of federal government workers, they are the pragmatic, conservative, money pinchers proposing to do nothing.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Crogged says:
        November 26, 2014 at 8:37 am

        “And let’s make one thing real freaking clear, neither you nor anyone writing on here speaks for those naturalized citizens and their feelings regarding getting ‘slapped in the face’. You have no clue and need to quit projecting your feelings on an imaginary audience.”

        Thank you Crogged. And Cappy, speaking as a first generation immigrant and naturalized LEGAL American citizen raised in this country from childhood, I wholeheartedly agree with Crogged.

        YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME as you have proven again you are a hateful hypocritical progeny of the original illegal aliens in this land.

        So now Cappy is ok with Chinese “anchor babies” illegal immigrants gaming the system but not Hispanics? Wow, you can’t be any more clear cut with your ethnic bias and outright racism Cap. But again, not a surprise.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I am perfectly capable of speaking for law abiding folk in that crime should not be rwarded.

        Bubba, the Chinese are not using their children as anchor babies. They give birth then all get back to China. Those children will have the option to come back when they are old enough. Big difference.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You speak from no perspective of understanding and a lot of hypocrisy and no sane logic or sense whatsoever as you prove over and over again Cap. So it’s NOT an “anchor baby” if they game the system at a later date but not right away? Seriously?

        Presumably then all those Hispanic “anchor babies” you want to deport are ok to stay only if they leave and come back?

        Wow, talk about micro splitting of hair like contortions to not appear like a consummate hypocrite. Despite proving you are a consummate hypocrite in just about everything else you post.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        My mom was an immigrant from a well-to-do but small-town family in Mexico who met her future husband (my dad) while vacationing in Houston. She became a legal US resident (and eventually a naturalized US citizen) when she married my dad, but I don’t want to hear a peep about anchor husbands or anchor marriages. They married for love, two solitary souls who found each other late in life.

        I know for a fact that my mom didn’t have a problem with illegal immigrants who were just here to work. What she did not like was people gaming the system, getting undeserved benefits, based on fraudulent information.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I like to point out that my mom was from a well-to-do family, not to brag, but because it’s usually assumed, incorrectly, that she came to the US because she was living in poverty, and I want to clarify that that was not the case.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You don’t grasp the concept, Bubba.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Oh, and a Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Screw this place.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You’re right Cap. I don’t “grasp” your abject blatant willful hypocrisy.

        And damn glad I don’t.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        One thing I can say about my parents is that they were the strong, silent type who didn’t waste their time bickering with others over petty crap 24/7. They were too dignified for that.

        As the saying goes: PARECEN VIEJAS.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        So all the illegal immigrants in our country abandoned the process because it was too burdensome? You guys are off your nut man.

        It seems you try to conflate to arguments into one when they don’t fit. One is following the law and the other is the need to address areas that need to be improved.

        I believe we are a nation of laws. I believe illegals start their stay with us breaking the law and further add felonies to their resume’. I believe we do not know their alligience. I believe we don’t know how their health is? I believe they have no sponsor that can assist them transitioning.

        What you liberals say? Fuck it. Who cares.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Not that there was any question you ever did buzzy but thanks for the irrefutable confirmation from the horse’s mouth.

      • flypusher says:

        “The process, from beginning, to end took more than a year. What idiocy.”

        Here’s some more idiocy. I have friends who were in a research dept in one of the major TMC institutions, and the mucky-mucks decided to liquidate that dept. The PIs, being under contract and having grants, were able to relocate to others depts. Most the lab personnel could also transfer except for a few postdocs on visas (didn’t hear which type). In a world where things are done logically, it would be a simple thing just to change their paperwork to remove the now defunct dept and replace it with their new dept. 10 minutes, tops. But no, they have to go back to their home country to make those changes, and they could wait for months to get it done, all while losing valuable research time and maybe even being separated from their families. The system is totally FUBAR’ed.

      • johngalt says:

        Sternn wants to talk about Chinese anchor babies and how they all go back to China. In my experience, working with lots of Chinese scientists (all of whom are here legally), they rarely want to go back and do so only if they run out of employment/visa options in the U.S. It is a rare one recruited back for professional reasons.

      • johngalt says:

        “I believe we do not know their alligience.” Kabuzz

        They said that about Japanese-Americans during WWII, and about German-Americans during WWI. They said it about the Irish in the 1840s and 1850s. They said it about black slaves and Chinese coolies. They said it about hippies in the ’60s and Hollywood in the ’50s. I’m glad to see that Kabuzz is continuing a long tradition of suspicion of anyone who looks or talks a bit differently than he does.

  11. tuttabellamia says:

    I guess you have to be a very special person to be this interested in politics.

  12. kabuzz61 says:

    This is an interview Obama had with ABC:

    Transcript…

    Obama: The reason that we have to do prosecutorial discretion in immigration is that we know we are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time. The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes, and when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating. We’re not going after millions and millions of people who everybody knows are here and we’re taking advantage of low wages as they’re mowing lawns or cleaning out bedpans, and looking the other way.

    Stephanopoulos: So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument [that tax law should be selectively enforced]?

    Obama: With respect to taxes? Absolutely not.

    You can’t write a comedy better than this empty suit not understanding how he set precedence. You liberals must be, must be so proud.

    • Crogged says:

      It is funny you don’t understand the point of spending enforcement money wisely. Cracks me up. Sure, the IRS can audit every single tax return, would that be a wise use of resources? Spend a thousand to gain twenty? It does set a ‘precedence’, most Americans refuse to set up a government by the witless for the witless.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      You don’t get it either. Say the next president states that anyone owing 50K will not have the IRS bother you. You have been forgiven.

    • Anse says:

      Kabuzz, the law that created the Office of Homeland Security explicitly gives that agency–and by extension, the president–the authority to set priorities and rules for enforcing immigration law.

      But it should also be acknowledged that enforcement of tax law is also necessarily selective. We don’t all get audited, and as a result, some people get away with legally questionable stuff.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        So he has the power to selective enforce laws. Where does his power come to change law as in granting 5 million illegals amnesty?

      • goplifer says:

        It comes from Article 2 of the US Constitution, Clause 1. Go ahead and remove that cherished copy from your pocket and actually read through it.

      • Anse says:

        Obama can do with immigration law what Bush did with laws governing environmental regulation:

        “Bush was clear from the outset that he wanted to relax some environmental regulations that industry found onerous. During his first year in office, the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) asked industry which federal regulations it thought needed to be changed. Many of OMB’s recommendations targeted EPA rules. At OMB’s direction, EPA worked to implement suggestions from the chemical and utility sectors.”

        http://pubs.acs.org/cen/email/html/cen_86_i51_8651gov1.html

      • Anse says:

        Kabuzz, giving people a three-year deferment is not “amnesty.” They’re still not citizens. And this EO does not put them on a direct path to citizenship.

        I know you are simply being partisan, but at least try to be sensible.

      • Turtles Run says:

        They are not getting amnesty. They are only eligible for 3 year work permits. And if the GOP congress that comes into session wants to actually do something like pass immigration reform based on reality then the President’s executive order is mute.

        Vegas odds are that the GOTP will sit on their bal….laurels and not do jack shaite.

      • Turtles, I understand that if you stretch “prosecutorial discretion” like Gumby hitting a black hole event horizon, you just might be able to side with Obama deciding he’s not going to prosecute a block of some 4 million souls.

        Pray tell, under what article of the Constitution or *any* existing immigration law is Obama subsequently empowered to grant such people work permits and legal status?

  13. kabuzz61 says:

    It is obvious that liberals have no sense of the law. No desire to enforce or obey laws. Law to liberals are only conveniences to use agaist their political enemies and inconveniences when used on them. So to discuss illegal immigration with liberals is fruitless.

    Now those that obey laws and have core beliefs and principles approach the issue as it should be, through laws, which is what our nation is about.

    • johngalt says:

      “Obvious” apparently means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.

    • flypusher says:

      It’s obvious that any issue that isn’t absolutely perfectly black & white sends you into the default “blame everything on liberals” mode.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I rest my case. So you are saying the laws on this issue don’t matter. Thanks.

      • flypusher says:

        No buzzy, what we’ve been saying (so many times we’ve lost count), that the laws as they stand today do not reflect either reality or the country’s economic best interests. Bad, obsolete laws need to be fixed or replaced, not brainlessly obeyed.

        But thanks for proving our point that you would rather bitch and moan and insult rather than actually contribute anything.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        It all depends on who is judging the law and how politically expediant for the short term for a certain party.

      • johngalt says:

        Moreover, it is impossible to brainlessly obey these (bad) laws. Nobody, Dem or GOP alike, is willing to do what it would take. The Dems basically are OK with immigration, though there is some resistance from their union supporters. The GOP hates it, but they are beholden to their corporate masters who like the perceived effects of immigration on wages. They are also unwilling to actually spend the money for any form of effective enforcement, so we get show pieces (“security porn”) like isolated chunks of border walls that are as intrusive and ugly as they are ineffective. They don’t even suggest realistic enforcement methods, instead bleating incessant sound bites about securing the border. Immigration reform has been proposed for the last 10 years, across two presidents, only to run into a solid red wall of hysteria and hypocrisy.

      • flypusher says:

        “It all depends on who is judging the law and how politically expediant for the short term for a certain party.”

        It you ate a brainless partisan hack, then yes. JG summed it up perfectly above for the actual thinking people.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “It all depends on who is judging the law and how politically expediant for the short term for a certain party.”

        Stop, just stop. The GOP was whining all summer because we were enforcing our immigration laws so spare us the BS.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        “Hate immigration” is was JG said. He drank the kool aid.

        If there is a bad law on the books, congress must change it. Just because it isn’t what Obama wants doesn’t make it a bad law. You do get this right? Are you that in the tank for Obama?

      • johngalt says:

        The present day GOP demonizes immigrants and immigration in general. It is the bogey man for all sorts of problems, or didn’t you see various GOPers, like Perry and Graham fretting about ISIS crossing our southern border, an idiotic bit of fear mongering. I don’t think that saying the GOP hates immigration is much of a stretch.

        It wasn’t always this way. There used to be GOP figures that also recognized that immigration policy was broken and the laws needed to be fixed. But that was so 8 years ago.

      • flypusher says:

        “If there is a bad law on the books, congress must change it.”

        No outside agency is stopping them from writing the bills needed to change it. They could be working on it right now, if they wish.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “The present day GOP demonizes immigrants and immigration in general.”

        And that would be a lie. Nothing new to see here.

        At least t would be a lie if the person writing such words had the intelligence to understand the difference between legal and illegal. So, John, is it a lie or is it that you are not intelligent enough to understand the difference?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Captain, the ‘smart’ liberals can’t distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. That is telling. JG, you’re out of your depth it seems.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      The libertarian view would be that there are too many laws, that many are unnecessary, or should be relaxed or at least revisited. Not anarchy, but a bit more freedom so that people and business can circulate more easily, with few obstacles.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Laws should be more about protection from exploitation.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I do take issue with some of the spokespeople for illegal immigrants. I think that to a certain extent legalization/amnesty should be humbly requested of the host nation, not demanded. I don’t think anyone should grovel, but I do think legalization should be treated as the privilege it is, not an automatic entitlement. It’s a matter of simple respect.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Respect for the host nation for providing a place to live and work, and respect for the illegal immigrants for providing the fruits of their labor.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The relationship between illegal immigrant and the host nation has turned into a love/hate thing. Although they need each other, there is also mutual contempt.

      • Crogged says:

        It is difficult to treat hypocrisy with anything but contempt.

    • Kabuzz, it’s not that liberals have no sense of the law, it’s that for liberals desired outcomes trump law. It’s a side effect of the deficiencies of central planning. Central planning schemes always suffer from information deficit disorder (a.k.a Gödel’s incompleteness theorems), and therefore always introduce undesired and unanticipated outcomes. This is true no matter how complex and complete the central plan (think Dodd-Frank or PPACA). As a result, liberal executives end up modifying central plans (i.e., the *law*) on-the-fly in order to achieve desired outcomes. (As I’m sure you’re aware, Hayek plows this furrow thoroughly in, “The Road to Serfdom.”)

      Perversely, the more complex a given law is, the more amenable it is to liberal bang-to-fit, paint-to-match retroactive “fixing.” Obama’s selective enforcement syndrome and executive order legislation affliction are ineluctable consequences of the central planner’s fundamental inability to foresee all possible outcomes.

      The aforementioned limitation is the raison d’être for the conservative concept of the rule of law, and also for the concept of self rule. In order for the rule of law to be effective, laws must be few, comprehensible by any, and applicable equally to all. (See Madison in the Federalist papers.) Above all else, no body of law will suffice to govern the actions of a person incapable of self governance. Democracy is for grown-ups equipped with a moral compass, not for the yahoos roaming the streets of Ferguson last night.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That is a major problem with the left, they never consider the consequences of their actions. They are interested in instant gratification and have the belief that things haven’t worked before and/or in other places simply because it wasn’t the right people in charge, hence Obama’s statement, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

        Then, when the consequences come to be, they act like they are confounded by them, they look to blame others, or simply end up looking like a deer in the headlights, or as more often than not, both.

        And speaking of your last sentence, it comes back to the saying that democrats want to be your mother, republicans want to be your father, libertarians expect you to be an adult.

        The situation in Ferguson is a sad one for several reasons. It is sad because people refuse to accept facts and reality, sad because it was easily predicted and even expected, and sad because the people most hurt are “minorities” that own businesses that were looted and burned.

        Why is it that a black man that hates police and white people and is angry because a white police officer killed a black man in self defense would then turn around and steal from another black man and burn down his business as some form of “retaliation” against white people and police in general?

        Then again, there are a lot of questions that leave me scratching my head, such as why would free people want to throw that freedom away and replace it with serfdom and slavery? From what they write here and other places, they think freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom. Slaves back in the day and people in prison now get free housing, health care, food, clothing … everything is provided by the masters or the government. Why in the world would anybody prefer, seek or advocate that kind of existence? I would rather be free and die of starvation or exposure to the elements than live like that. Maybe “live” is the wrong word, more like “exist” or simply “survive”.

  14. Anse says:

    I’m all in favor of making it easier for people in Mexico to get a work permit; what I don’t support is the kind of “guest worker” program that is controlled to the point where only those who work in x-industries are allowed in the country. It seems to me a more effective approach, and a more free-market-oriented approach, would be to simply issue green cards without putting a lot of conditions on them. Let them come here and look for work. There’s not really an effective way of regulating the kind of work available to them because we don’t manage our economy from a centralized authority. Let our employers consider their own needs as they see fit and hire people according to their own needs and priorities.

  15. Reagan’s comment echoed how the majority of us on the right felt in 1980. It’s what’s happened since *1986* that has caused many to change their thinking.

    • johngalt says:

      Which is what? We didn’t do anything that either Bush or Reagan suggested in that exchange, largely because of political pressures, took the easy way out with a highly temporary band-aid, and are surprised that the problem didn’t fix itself?

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Which is what?”

        Democrats didn’t keep their word and secure the border.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, please demonstrate specifically where and how the word was given.

      • johngalt says:

        Neither Reagan nor Bush said anything about “securing the border”. They talked about improved relationships with Mexico, stronger economic ties, and simple decency. All of which are entirely absent in today’s discussion. Do you know how you prevent illegal immigration from poor places? Help make them less poor, which we could largely do in a way that improves our own economy at the same time.

      • Anse says:

        “Seal the border.”

        You will never, ever see the border “sealed”. It’s a ridiculously unreachable goal, intentionally repeated by right wing know-nothings so they can have an excuse to do nothing about the issue.

        It’s like these crazy people like Ted Cruz…rather than pass any meaningful legislation on immigration, they’re going to channel their rage machine on Obama. The nutty wing of the GOP doesn’t really want to do anything about it.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Control the border by fining heavily any company that hires illegals and fining individuals that hire illegals. Make it hurt. It will change quickly.

      • johngalt says:

        There’s an awesome pro-business policy from a business-friendly conservative, Kabuzz. What do you think are the chances of that happening? (I’ll give you a hint: it’s 0%.)

    • Crogged says:

      “The most important thing I learned from Kesler’s book is just how large a stake conservatives have in convincing themselves and voters that Reagan failed. Think about it: if they conceded ideological victory they would have to confront the more prosaic reasons that entitlements, deficits and regulations continue to grow in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. They would be forced to devise a new, forward-looking agenda to benefit even their own constituencies, like ensuring that American business can draw on an educated, healthy work force; can rely on modern public infrastructure; and can count on stable, transparent financial markets. And they would have to articulate a conservative vision for those welfare state programs that are likely to remain with us, like disability insurance, food stamps and Head Start.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/books/review/the-great-disconnect.html?pagewanted=all

    • goplifer says:

      “What’s happened since 1986” is about the same as what was happening before. Illegal border crossings are now at their lowest level since the early 70’s. It ebbs and wanes. The panic over it ebbs and wanes too, but in a way that’s completely disconnected from the facts on the ground.

      Net migration from Latin America has reached zero. That’s how severe the crisis is. We get more immigrants, legal and illegal, from Asia now than from Latin America.

      What did Reagan do in ’86 that influenced this wave? Nothing. Quite literally.

      Reagan and Congress punted on the question, relieving some of the burden by bringing a subset of these immigrants under the legal framework. What they didn’t do was address the fundamental disconnect between our laws and our economic incentives.

      What’s happened since ’86 is a continuation of what was happening for decades before, the steadily declining power of a white, male Protestant cultural majority. The panic we see now is happening because we’re reaching a critical point on the curve and certain people are getting desperate.

      • flypusher says:

        But blaming it all on the Dems in ’86 doesn’t over stress limited neural resources!

        “What they didn’t do was address the fundamental disconnect between our laws and our economic incentives.”

        Seriously that’s a wonderfully concise statement of the problem. I’ll be stealing that one for any possible holiday discussion with righties relatives. Speaking of at odds with economic incentives, I heard this on KUHF while on the road yesterday:

        http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2497.htm

        While greed trumps many other things, it looks like it meets its match in the desire to feel superior.

  16. texan5142 says:

    goplifer says:
    November 22, 2014 at 1:06 pm
    No. Not a fan of fishing in the cold. But you have to use an electric drill to create the holes for the campaign signs in the springtime. It makes it a two-man job. You can’t really go it alone. Sign duty for the fall elections is much, much more pleasant.

    We have a company event coming up this spring in the Twin Cities where I’m supposed to go ice fishing with customers. Not so sure about that. I assume they will be providing us with drills.

    Maybe the company will rent a nice fish house.

  17. Turtles Run says:

    America’s toughest Sheriff is still hot on the trail of Obama’s lawlessness, this time investigating the President’s executive action on immigration. Larry Klayman representing Sheriff Arpaio is no stranger to suing the President and the government. One lawsuit claims the President allowed Ebola to enter the country and he is suing to have the Department of Homeland Security investigate Obama’s citizenship status.

    Unfortunately, the case has stumbled on its first roadblock.

    Seems ole Larry is also being investigated for touching his children inappropriately.

    “Say it ain’t so Joe”

    http://www.kpho.com/story/27455811/attorney-in-arpaio-vs-obama-lawsuit-has-own-legal-troubles

  18. rightonrush says:

    sigh, sorry Jeffrey, most of the clowns are still stuck on stupid.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/flake-move-beyond-benghazi

    Poor Lindsey Graham just can’t let go! Heard today he is considering running for Pres 2016. The GOP clown car is filling up fast. Move over Ben Carson & Rand Paul, Lindsey is in the house! Personally I think Sternn & Buzz should throw their hats errrr capes and cat suits into the ring.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/graham-benghazi-report-full-crap

  19. rightonrush says:

    I’m waiting for all the riots and anarchy that Tom Coburn warned of if Obama did the immigration executive order. Coburn should just stick to keeping his silly coiffure perfect.

    per CNBC
    “Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama’s executive order on immigration Thursday.”

  20. lomamonster says:

    I can’t wait until we have to debate a border deal with Space Aliens.

  21. flypusher says:

    Off topic but suitable for your lazy Sunday morning amusement, the latest conspiracy theory:

    http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/stevie-wonder-is-not-blind-the-evidence-1641795715

    Some NSFW language.

  22. […] What Reagan said about a border wall by Chris Ladd on GOPLifer. […]

  23. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    So, what would this “secure border” look like? How would we know it is secure?

    If you all want us to wait until it is secure before we can talk about immigration reform, I’m kinda curious what hurdle it will be.

  24. Doug says:

    “A generation later, why such a stark change? ”

    Perhaps because we’ve seen the results?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Doug

        You are correct. We have seen millions of people come to this nation for a better life. Exactly the types of people that this nation needs and wants.

        I am sure this is what you meant, right.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, millions that came here legally and worked to become citizens through the legal process, Turtles. You don’t excuse criminals, do you?

      • Turtles Run says:

        No more than a man stealing bread to feed his family.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Stealing bread from a man trying to feed his family.

      • johngalt says:

        There was a time at which it was possible for a relatively unskilled person without family ties here but willing to work hard to immigrate legally. That time ended roughly a century ago, before which I would wager both Sternn’s family and mine were already here. Today it is essentially impossible for that person, unless they come from the rarest of places, to immigrate legally, no matter how hard they will work. Yet, our economy essentially demands the labor these people provide, so what then? There is demand but no legal channel. So we have a cruel system that provides economic incentives to immigrate illegally, provides under-the-table jobs, and a capriciously random enforcement regime. That is a fail for all involved, except entitled hypocrites who loudly proclaim that immigrants should just follow the law, like their ancestors did when there were, in fact, no laws.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Excellent summary of the situation, John Galt. Very well put.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good point, John. We really need to crack down on those that take advantage and exploit illegal aliens.

        By the way, maybe you should look into what it would take to emigrate to another country, then compare what it takes to immigrate into this country. We already make it easier than most others. Open borders is not a good idea.

      • flypusher says:

        “By the way, maybe you should look into what it would take to emigrate to another country, then compare what it takes to immigrate into this country. We already make it easier than most others. Open borders is not a good idea.”

        Here’s a much better idea. How about look at what we require in terms of jobs that need to be done, who’s offering to fill them, and make a policy based on that, instead on what other countries that might not even have the same issues do.

        The “we’re not as restrictive as other countries” line is almost always lame and not relevant.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “How about look at what we require in terms of jobs that need to be done, who’s offering to fill them, and make a policy based on that, instead on what other countries that might not even have the same issues do.”

        We do that now. It could be expanded and more work visas allowed. That would be a valid discussion of immigration reform, after the border is secured and current laws enforced.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “after the border is secured and current laws enforced.”

        In other words, under a sufficiently vague standard as to effectively mean “never”.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s what your side says, bird. Brace yourself for the next two years because Reid will soon no longer have the power to protect Obama.

      • Doug says:

        “Exactly the types of people that this nation needs and wants.”

        Last year one of them ran a red light and smashed into my truck, causing thousands in damage. Drunk, illegal, no license or insurance. The cops basically said there wasn’t anything they could do. If you need and want them, you’re welcome to send me a check for $7K.

      • goplifer says:

        I’ll go ahead and send you the check since no white American teenager would ever do that.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If all illegal immigrants are responsible for the actions of a few, then are all Christians responsible for the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church?

        Tea Party logic really is amusing.

      • flypusher says:

        Doug, there’s this auto insurance option called uninsured driver coverage. It’s a wise option, considering that American citizens can also drive drunk without insurance and hit other people. I suggest you look into it. I found it useful when some asshole backed into my car while it was parked, crunched up one of the tail lights, and just left.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “That would be a valid discussion of immigration reform, after the border is secured and current laws enforced.”

        Right!!! When laws were being enforced concerning the wave of unescorted minors were crossing the border over the summer the tea types were screaming that the laws should not be enforced concerning their treatment.

        I will go ahead and make a prediction. No matter what is done on the border no policy and enforcement measure will be good enough so immigration reform will never happen.

        Hence, I say frak you guys.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Do Tea Party types think with their hindbrains by choice or because that’s all they’ve got?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, Lifer, if the parents are allowing their teenager to drive without a license or insurance, they should be held responsible along with the teenager.

        Then again, personal responsibility is not a concept the left will grasp, much less accept.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Many might say that responsibility and prudence are best shown by carrying uninsured motorist coverage. Oh, and health insurance.

        But, as we all well know, hypocrisy is a Republican value.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, bird, I do have coverage for the uninsured driver, but I don’t carry full coverage. Driving on public roads is a privilege and one must meet many conditions. Liberals want living to be the same, a privilege instead of a right.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I believe that women should not be enslaved by the state.

        Sternn disagrees.

        How ironic.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The bird spouts lies in an act of desperation. Of course, that is nothing new, the bird spouts lies for all sorts of reasons, and desperation is just one of them.

      • CaptSternn says:

        But then again, the bird believes all people should be enslaved by the state. People are serfs and servants and the government is the sovereign, the lord and king.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Comic-boy, of course, cannot help but lie about those he argues with. Otherwise, even he wouldn’t be able to believe in his feeble attempts to fulfill his child-like need to “win”.

        From his fantasy castle, he airily pronounces commandments for freedom which simply don’t work in the real world. In fact, they result in the virtual enslavement of workers to their employers, of minorities to majorities, of women to men, and on and on and on.

        Is it banal stupidity, cloaked malevolence, or some of each?

  25. mary says:

    I’ve heard it said more than once, “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me!” Nuff said.

  26. stephen says:

    Watching the clip reminded me why I voted for Reagan. But I still am upset about the deficit increase under his watch and Pappy Bush’s watch. In politics you have to make chooses and you never get everything you want.

    Obama has out foxed the GOP leadership with his executive order. If the GOP keeps fighting this issue they will alienate the Hispanic vote for generations but if they don’t fight it they will alienate their Dixiecrat racist base. The older southern white rural voter is scared of losing their cultural dominance,(pointed out in this blog), which they only had in the deep south anyway.That is why they fight tooth and toenail against immigration reform.

    These brown people are desperate and are coming no matter what. Might as well get them out of the shadows. Being a Floridian where Hispanics make up a large share of the population I know it is no big deal. They are not that different from the old native population. Like the Bushes I have Hispanic relatives. And my family goes back pre-Revolutionary war. The children of the Dixiecrats are becoming independent or Democrats. They are disgusted with the thinking and methods of the GOP. If the party does not reform it will die in a generation. I hope that the beating that I think the GOP will get in 2016 will finally allow saner and more traditional Republicans to reassert control and hit the brakes before the bus goes over the cliff.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Weakness argues based on race and emotion, strength argues based on rule of law and facts. We have nothing against Hispanics, which is why almost half of the Hispanics voted for republicans in 2014. That will continue to climb as democrats get all up in their personal business and treat them as inferiors. Hispanics tend to lead very conservative lifestyles and hold conservative views. Those that took the time and made the effort to come here legally generally do not want to be slapped in the face by harboring and aiding those that have no respect for the law or this nation.

  27. johngalt says:

    You mean Reagan and Bush, those RINO imposters?

  28. rightonrush says:

    Another witch hunt that went nowhere. A waste of tax payer money just so Issa could confirm what I’ve thought all along….he IS a showboating idiot.
    Republican-led report debunks Benghazi theories and accusations
    By Adam Levine, CNN
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/

  29. CaptSternn says:

    Reagan was running against Carter, and there was the issue with Iran, gas shortages, rationing by odd and even plate numbers … I wasn’t old enough to vote, but even then I knew carter was bad news. Four years before that I thought Carter was great. That’s probably why children don’t get to vote. The main thing about Reagan was that our enemies feared him.

    They do not fear democrats. They mock the U.S. when a democrat is president, at least during my lifetime. Yes, there was FDR and he did well in WWII, after winning the election by promising to keep the U.S. out of the war. Johnson finished strong. But since then, not so well. FDR’s domestic policies wrecked the nation and we are still dealing with the damage.

    Since the end of WWII, republicans have been good on foreign policy and bad with domestic policy, and democrats have been bad with both.

    Now move to the present and look back on the mistakes that were made. Congress pushed through amnesty under Reagan, and he signed it with the assurance that the southern border would then be secured. The democrats lied. No surprise there, at least not from our current perspective.

    Now Reagan is long since out of office, and no longer even among the living. Those of us that came of age under Reagan and Bush didn’t really care for them that much, and cared for democrats even less.

    You call us racists, but we never saw racism. We grew up in mixed company and never thought a thing of it. In the end, that just shows the weakness of the arguments from the left.

    Oh, and Bush was not one of the Dixiecrats. Here is a list of the actual members of the Dixiecrats …

    Orval Fabus
    Benjamin Travis Laney
    John Stennis
    James Eastland
    Allen Ellender
    Russell Long
    John Sparkman
    John McClellan
    Richard Russell
    Herman Talmadge
    George Wallace
    Lester Maddox
    John Rarick
    Robert Byrd
    Al Gore, Sr.
    Bull Connor
    Strom Thurmond
    Mills Godwin
    Jesse Helms

    Only the last three switched parties.

    • texan5142 says:

      Did you use lead paint chips to eat the paste or did you eat the chips straight up?

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Sternn seethes, “Yes, there was FDR and he did well in WWII, after winning the election by promising to keep the U.S. out of the war.”

      OK, don’t straddle the fence, Mr. Confederate Apologist. Do you or do you not consider that the global war against Nazism was a good and necessary idea?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, it was necessary and it took the U.S. and Russia to beat back the Axis Powers.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So you would agree that FDR should not have kept his campaign promises, particularly after Japan attacked the United States?

        Or are you arguing that he shouldn’t have made those promises, and thus not been elected in the first place?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Don’t make promises that you can’t keep. You know, like, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But Obama knew he was lying when he said it. And yes, you can even throw in, “No new taxes.”

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Gotcha — so you would have voted for Wendell Willkie.

        Except you wouldn’t have done so, since you probably view him as an appalling liberal.

        As usual, your stiff-necked, unrealistic orthodoxy makes all realistic options unacceptable, and renders you utterly ineffective except as a screeching scold.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Sternn sneers, “Those of us that came of age under Reagan and Bush didn’t really care for them that much.”

      Then why, pray tell, has the Republican Party become the Cult of Reagan?

      Or are you admitting that your often-lauded “us” is actually very small and unrepresentative, and should be read only as “contrarian idiots like me”?

    • goplifer says:

      You can’t even get past the first sentence without inventing crap.

      ***Reagan was running against Carter***

      No, he was not. Reagan was running against Texas’ leading Republican figure, George H.W. Bush. And by the way, neither of them were running against Carter. Carter was fighting for his life to secure renomination against a (nearly successful) challenge by Ted Kennedy.

      My friend, when it comes to this kind of stuff you are living in a fantasy world. I can’t imagine how much energy it must consume to maintain these delusions against a relentless, poisonous tide of information.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        No, he was running against Carter. GHW Bush was running against Reagan. I was active then and very aware. You simply weren’t. Wherever you got your information, ask for your money back.

        Immigration is like GW with you. You state we don’t believe it is happening but we do, we only disagree on the cause. Immigration reform needs to take place but the government first has to prove they are serious about securing the border including fining businesses that hire illegals.

        You are at least consistent. You consistently write half truths.

      • Turtles Run says:

        I would like to point out that the League of Women voters hosted this debate. The LWV has been historically a non-partisan group yet in the last election cycle they were forced to discontinue voter registration operations in Florida.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I was referring to the general elections, not the primaries. I mean, you do know who Jimmy Carter is, right? I was young but I very clearly remember the Iran hostage situation. Immigration was far down on the list of what the nation was watching. And once it was addressed many years later, the left failed to follow through on their end. Lesson learned.

      • flypusher says:

        You persist in your intellectual dishonesty Sternn. Chris was very clearly referring to the 1980 GOP PRIMARY, and the fact that the 2 major contestants were discussing immigration in realistic and compassionate terms, in contrast to all the vitriol associated with the issue today. Carter has zilch to do with that point, but I guess you’ll get anemic if you don’t get in your minimum daily requirement of gratuitous Dem bashing.

      • flypusher says:

        “No, he was running against Carter. GHW Bush was running against Reagan. I was active then and very aware. ”

        You were aware that Reagan was running against Carter in the primary, Bush the Elder was running against Reagan in the primary, but Reagan was NOT running against Bush in the primary? Seriously, do you ever think before your fingers touch the keyboard? Also what the hell were you imbibing back then?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Fly, I understand that I skipped over the primaries that Lifer was talking about. The point is that illegal aliens and illegal immigration were not exactly focal points or anything major in the race for the oval office.

        Nor does it matter what was said back then. The left didn’t hold up their end of the bargain, lessons learned.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Oh, Sternn. You and kabuzz keep ranting about this Dolchstoßlegende, but so far as I can tell it’s your usual load of crap.

        Where is your evidence of this supposed Democratic subterfuge in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?

        I’m sure, if you have the brains and balls to present any, that it’s the usual load of misquoted and misunderstood right-wing panic-mongering. You seem incapable of dealing with objective reality.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Where is your evidence of this supposed Democratic subterfuge in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?”

        Um, some 11 million illegal aliens in the country and hundreds of thousands more coming in each year.

      • flypusher says:

        “Yes, Fly, I understand that I skipped over the primaries that Lifer was talking about. The point is that illegal aliens and illegal immigration were not exactly focal points or anything major in the race for the oval office.

        Nor does it matter what was said back then. The left didn’t hold up their end of the bargain, lessons learned.”

        Good grief Sternn, what matters here is that point was important to Chris, because he was describing what was IMPORTANT TO HIM, in terms of the tone of the rhetoric and position on the issue that APPEALED TO HIM. You don’t agree, fine. But this has zip, zero, zilch to do with the Dems. It also very much does matter to the future of the GOP. The Dems aren’t making the GOP sound like a bunch of xenophobic paranoid throwbacks. That is something you are freely choosing to do to yourselves. Nothing is stopping the incoming GOP Congress from working on a realistic immigration overhaul, except their own internal infighting. Bitching about ’86 is a lame excuse for not doing anything realistic now.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Bitching about ’86 is a lame excuse for not doing anything realistic now.”

        Well, you need to send that message to Lifer. The rest of us learned that democrats and the left do not keep their word.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What word was given, comic-boy?

        You have yet to demonstrate that.

        Of course, facts never have been your strong point.

      • flypusher says:

        “Well, you need to send that message to Lifer. The rest of us learned that democrats and the left do not keep their word.:

        You’re making even less sense than usual. Chris isn’t the one using it as an excuse, you are.

    • johngalt says:

      Herman Talmadge, Lester Maddox, George Wallace. Sternn, I’m embarrassed to claim these people, but I grew up in Georgia in the 1970s. You persist in some delusion regarding the political affiliation of these individuals. They were Democrats, because everyone in the South were Democrats. If they were active in politics today, there is a 100.0% chance they would be Republicans. There is no real argument to this. Boy, I wonder what motivated the switch of cranky white people from D to R in the South?

      • CaptSternn says:

        There is much argument against that claim. The Dixiecrats went back to being Democrats except for three. The KKK member of congress remained a democrat. Gore is still a democrat. Democrats remain the party that looks down on people with darker skin as being inferior.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        These racists in the democratic party maintained control of congress for a couple decades. I know why you would want to rewrite history since your party affiliation is directly linked to racism and the KKK. Thems is just the facts.

      • johngalt says:

        There is not a shred of argument against this claim. To argue your position, you have to assume that all of the “racist Democrats” that lived in the South moved away, died, or had a “come to Jesus” moment at some point between 1960 and 1980, to be replaced by God-fearing libertarian Republicans. This stretches the imagination beyond the possible. Democrats Rick Perry, Phil Graham, and Jesse Helms might offer some real world perspectives.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They pretty much died off or stayed with the democrats, John. Or stayed with the democrats until they died off. And the democrats carry on their tradition.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      CaptSternn says:
      November 22, 2014 at 9:34 am

      “The main thing about Reagan was that our enemies feared him. They do not fear democrats [sic]. They mock the U.S. when a democrat [sic] is president, at least during my lifetime. Since the end of WWII, republicans [sic] have been good on foreign policy and bad with domestic policy, and democrats [sic] have been bad with both.”

      Debunking Cappy’s delusional world is like shooting fish in a barrel. Keep spouting the same factless trope, I will just repost the same facts verbatim to debunk your delusional lies.

      Google “SS Mayaguez” and Gerald Ford’s botched 1975 “rescue” that killed more Americans (15 Americans killed in the failed rescue operation, 23 killed in an accidental helicopter crash, and 3 Marine rescuers inadvertently left behind alive never to be seen again or returned and later presumed executed) than were actually held hostage (39). And to make matters worse, the crew was set free prior to the start of the rescue mission.

      And I actually like President Ford. Shit happens in combat you know. And what came of that? Not a damn thing. At least after the Desert One fiasco in Iran with 8 Americans killed in the failed rescue, Carter saw the deficiency and acknowledging US military unpreparedness for such rescue operations and created the elite Delta Force Special Operations anti-terrorism unit.

      And Cappy, what was “tough guy” Ronald Reagan’s “response” and justice for the Marine barracks and US Embassy bombing in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 American Marines and 63 Americans in the embassy? Reagan turned tail and cut and ran out of his clueless foray in Lebanon immediately after the attacks.

      And no, the diversionary useless invasion of the tiny Caribbean resort island of Grenada 2 days later, that “hotbed of Middle Eastern terrorism”, does not count for “justice”.

      Reagan’s 3 days of piss poor planning for this gutless political ass covering showed. That political stunt killed more American military in accidents and friendly fire incidents than by enemy fire in that invasion of the resort island country. Including 4 elite Navy SEAL’s who drowned! And they weren’t even aware of half of the student body of American medical students they were purportedly sent to “rescue”. That would have been one hell of a disaster if 150 of the 300 Americans “rescued” were massacred because we didn’t know they existed. If the “Commie” Grenadians had any actual ill intent.

      And still no concern of justice for the 241 Marines left sitting ducks at the airport and killed in a truck bomb and 63 Americans and others killed in the US Embassy in Lebanon over 30 years ago with NO ACTION or JUSTICE whatsoever TO THIS DAY because the President was a Republican. But, but but, “BENGAZI! [sic]”

      Reagan gutlessly didn’t do a DAMN THING and you gutlessly couldn’t care less. Period.

      And ask the family of Navy sailor Robert Stethem (murdered by terrorist plane hijackers because he was American military) and American Leon Klinghoffer (tossed overboard in a wheelchair in the Achille Lauro hijacking) if the “enemies feared Reagan”. Ask the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that Reagan never got rid of but actually strengthened them with his dirty war, if the “enemies feared Reagan”. Ask the families of 4 nuns raped and murdered in El Salvador by Reagan supported and financed hit squads if the “enemies feared Reagan”. Ask Iran as they bought military hardware from Reagan in violation of his own embargo if the “enemies feared Reagan”.

      Oh yeah and Osama bin Laden wasn’t afraid of George W. Bush on 9/11/01. Or in Tora Bora. But I’m guessing he was afraid on May 2, 2011 in Pakistan as he took a bullet to the forehead. Who was President then Cappy?

      More from “feckless” Obama that “no one fears”:

      1) US blew up “secret” Iranian missile test facility and killed their top general, assassinated their nuclear experts, and trashed their nuclear reactors with the stuxnet worm, stunting their development of atomic weapons.

      2) Peacefully ended the unnecessary war in Iraq end of 2011 as promised.

      3) Then ramped up operations in Afghanistan to stabilize the country and drawing down forces to withdraw entirely in 2014.

      4) Authorized SEAL snipers to successfully take out Somali pirates holding Americans hostage on a merchant ship with no hostages killed or injured.

      6) Oh yeah, he killed a whole bunch of al Qaeda #2’s & #3’s in their leadership. And the aforementioned #1.

      Yup, ” they do not fear democrats [sic]. They mock the U.S. when a democrat [sic] is president “. Okaaaaay.

      Keep deluding yourself Cappy. Only your fellow delusional factless kneejerk sycophant buzzy agrees with you. Great company you keep.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bubba, you don’t seem to have gotten the message. I didn’t like Reagan or Bush41 or even Bush43. They were better than democrats (spelled correctly) on foreign policy, but generally wrong on domestic policy.

        Yes, our enemies saw the U.S. as being weak, which is why Saddam Hussein didn’t believe we would invade in 2003 and why his administration never would abide nor submit to the terms of the cease-fire.

        But now you go back to bragging about Obama withdrawing the troops from Iraq in 2011 after blaming Bush43 for signing that agreement. You flip-flop as fast as you can spin around in circles. Now we are having to go back to Iraq to deal with ISIS because Obama failed to listen to Bush43’s warning of what would happen if we pulled troops out of Iraq, which you blame Bush43 for doing but praise Obama for doing.

        Not only do we have ISIS to deal with, but Obama has aided the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the resurgence of al Qaeda. Is that the “Change and Hope” you voted for?

        You argue based on emotion while ignoring facts and rejecting reality.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        November 23, 2014 at 3:01 pm

        “You argue based on emotion while ignoring facts and rejecting reality.”

        As Cappy willfully ignores a ream of irrefutable FACTS I just posted debunking his consistent lie of Repubs as “brilliant military strategists”. None of which he even bothered to read much less try to refute.

        Yes Cappy, I haven’t gotten your message of willfully ignorant and deliberately obtuse crap to maintain your irrational and illogical rantings. Thankfully I never will.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Comic-boy likes images, ’cause words are too hard.

        And, of course, he lives in an ivory tower (well, more like one made of straw), from which he can disdain every president, Republican or Democrat. None of them were up to Sternn’s mighty standards. Why, I believe you have to go back to Hoover to find anyone that measures up to Sternn’s conservative brief. (And the way Hoover was reviled says a lot about the popularity of Sternn’s lunatic beliefs, too.)

        As usual, he dwells in a fact-free fantasy-land where nothing in reality ever works because reality is the enemy. Far more comfortable to loll about in la-la land.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Finding his own words is hard for comic-boy.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cappy’s infantile response is his (of course usual) obtuse and feeble non-overt acknowledgement that he has no answer to refute the unassailable hard facts anyone can verify on their own.

        So he deflects and distracts with mindless and meaningless (and incorrect) attacks via unoriginal internet meme pictographs like the “scintillating” 2 year old mind he possesses.

        Grow up already Cappy.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There is your problem, Bubba, you reject facts and reality and replace them with fantasy and imagination. This is why you and the bird are generally unworthy of being involved in any actual discussion, along with some others.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        November 24, 2014 at 7:51 am

        “There is your problem, Bubba, you reject facts and reality and replace them with fantasy and imagination. This is why you and the bird are generally unworthy of being involved in any actual discussion, along with some others.”

        Yes Cappy keep applying your reverse bizarro logic and convince no one but yourself and your pathetically obsequious lap dog/hooded delusional kitty.

        Grow some self awareness already. It’s an indicator of intelligent humanity ya know. Never mind. You obviously don’t.

  30. kabuzz61 says:

    I’m not convinced you are a republican or ever was. Most try to change things from the inside but you have always taken the outside approach and threw stones.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      When change fails from inside, sometimes you have to go outside.

      Maybe that’s why we’ve seen some big names leave the Republican Party. The Tea Party has no interest in reform or justice, only in control.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s almost funny. It is the left that wants to control people and micromanage our lives.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Uh-huh. Because opposition to marriage equality, hostility to abortion rights, friendliness toward authoritarian religious movements, support for a massive military-industrial and surveillance complex, etc., all have *nothing* to do with controlling people.

        How often do you have to check the mirror to make sure your tongue hasn’t blistered?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok, bird, so you support polygamous and group marriages, you support the concept of treating innocent human beings as nothing more than property to be disposed of if deemed inconvenient, you are against freedom of speech and religion, you would vote against democrats and RINOs for the NSA and IRS messes and you oppose things like the PPACA because that is controlling and micromanaging people.

        Somehow I doubt that you are being honest.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Yawn. More wife-beating nonsense.

    • goplifer says:

      You talking about me or Reagan? If I find it confusing I can’t imagine what you must be experiencing.

      • texan5142 says:

        The thought process boggles the mind, what kind convoluted brain contortion must one do to follow the supposed logic.

    • rightonrush says:

      I’m gonna go out on a limb here cat and say: “who gives a flying F what you think, or what you are convinced of”?

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Chris, people that have a different view of a particular party and wants to change it, they run for precinct chair and negotiate and be heard from there on. You just bitch. You just like the forum of being recognized as a supposedly GOPer but you aren’t. So keep bitching while your side keeps losing. If it makes you feel better.

      • rightonrush says:

        What part of Mr. Ladd’s bio don’t you understand cat?
        Chicago Conservative Examiner
        Chris Ladd is a longtime Republican political volunteer from Texas now living in Chicago. He has served as GOP Precinct Committeeman in DuPage County and worked with numerous Republican campaigns and PACs. He is concerned about the party’s drift toward the extremes. Chris also writes a blog on the website of his old hometown newspaper, The Houston Chronicle.

      • goplifer says:

        As I’ve said before, come up here in the spring time before the primaries. Walk the neighborhood carrying my ice-drill (necessary for posting campaign signs in peoples frozen yards). Then lecture me about my credentials.

      • texan5142 says:

        You ice fish Chris?

      • goplifer says:

        No. Not a fan of fishing in the cold. But you have to use an electric drill to create the holes for the campaign signs in the springtime. It makes it a two-man job. You can’t really go it alone. Sign duty for the fall elections is much, much more pleasant.

        We have a company event coming up this spring in the Twin Cities where I’m supposed to go ice fishing with customers. Not so sure about that. I assume they will be providing us with drills.

  31. texan5142 says:

    The republicans of today are a completely different animal then when you became a republican. Bizzaro world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 468 other followers

%d bloggers like this: