As long as Mexico keeps your nut jobs looking South, no one is going to notice the 'Canadianization' of America from the North.

Suddenly *bam* socialized health care. *bam* French mandatory in the schools.

Excellent...

Once again, how are we "libs" not enforcing this? I see a web site for a bureau of the American government, a bureau whose detailed workings are subject to the whims of those in power in the bureau. Explain to this poor, mentally challenged lefty how your shallow, unhinged diatribe makes one iota of fucking sense, especially how it relates to the "evidence" that you've offered before us.

French? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! GOD NO!!!!!!! WHY!!!!!!!!!

You are not too skilled at this whole making connections thing I see.

I am not saying "libs" are not enforcing this, I am saying that the executive branch (which law enforcement falls under) of the United States is not enforcing this. Since you are self-admittedly slow that would be "President Bush." You know, the dude you are supposed to disagree with.

The "libs" are in fact praising the non-enforcement, criticise anything that resembles enforcement, are spearheading legislative adoption of a "guest worker program," and uniformly demonize anyone with objections to the deliberate non-enforcement of our laws as a racist or xenophobe.

My criticism of the "libs" is that they are experiencing group cognitive dissonance. They are in effect saying in a matter of absolute value, I love it when the President picks and chooses, like he is at a buffet, which portions of his executive obligations will be carried out. He is saying, "Immigration laws have not been reformed, but in the interim, I am going to act like they have been."

Then the braindead left unable to connect dots suddenly want to awaken from their coma, howling and recoiling in horror when he applies the same methodology to the other laws, you know, shit like "signing statements," or continuing to do things deemed unconstitutional in federal courts like warrantless wiretaps, holding people without charges in Guantanamo, etc....

Congrats, this totally renegade despotic executive branch setting its own restrictions and obligations belongs to you, me, and all. Hope you are enjoying the ride as much as myself.

Left, Right,Left.
You ain't got no friends on your right;..your Left.
You ain't got no friends on your left;..your Right.

The imperial presidency is not a liberal invention. It had its humble beginnings with Lincoln and its accendency began with Eisenhower, peaked with Nixon and has been on the rise again since Reagan. All Republicans.

The fact the certain groups in Congress use it to their advantage when it meets their politcal ends simply shows their shortsightedness, but it is by no means a "liberal" quirk.

As for immigration measures. You go ahead and lock the US down.

Then try to get out.

That statement is a false dichotomy. Many other alternatives are possible. A president who does not exercise powers to which he is legally entitled is not a dictator. This remains the case whether or not he does anything in office whatsoever. Likewise, a president who fails to enforce laws but still refuses to violate the constitution of whatever state he governs is also not a dictator.

Also, I don't think "social contract" means what you think it means. A social contract is a tacit agreement made by citizens in society to enjoy rights and protection, so long as they refrain from violating the social contract (by violating some law, custom, or taboo). The role of the state in this model is only to threaten the use of collective force or empower individuals to protect rights. The state, however, does not have any responsibilities from a social contract. The social contract is between citizens and an abstract social whole.

What you mean is simply that the president isn't doing one of his jobs (to enforce laws). However, I fail to see which law he isn't enforcing. It seems that the President is indeed enforcing our existing immigration laws but that these laws are not sufficient to stop illegal immigration. The President does not personally enforce immigration (Ashcroft does), but it seems that the President has given him great freedom to tighten immigration: source. I imagine that your criticism is his guest worker program, though guest worker programs are perfectly legal, meaning that your accusation of illegal actions on the President's part is false.

You are also mistaken in your claim that liberals are "embracing the idea of the executive branch being able to pick and choose which laws it enforces" in regard to immigration. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats, for instance, think it is unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants since they have skirted the normal process for citizenship. Democrats have similar views on a number of related immigration issues. Source.

Finally, I disagree with your claim that since the "Left" isn't concerned with the enforcement of a set of laws that we must be silent to violations of the Constitution (though I obviously disagree with your claim that the laws are unenforced). First of all, many states, counties, and cities have unenforced laws ("blue laws," for instance) that no one really cares about enforcing.

More importantly, failing to enforce laws and violating the Constitution are two entirely different things. Imagine that a boyfriend failed to do what he was supposed to do when he was obligated to wash dishes for his girlfriend. Now imagine that the same boyfriend at a different time just punched his girlfriend. These two actions do not seem to be intuitively equal because one is an active violation of principles (and more importantly, a higher level principle). Likewise, the Constitution is more sacred (for lack of a better word) and binding than a specific law. I think most of us understand the difference because most of us will speed in our cars, but won't violate the Constitution.

You seem to have skipped Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Trust me I am no fan of the republicans.

"Republican" does not equal "conservative." The braintrust of the party, even from its origins with Lincoln straight on through to the Rockefellers, has always had its policies drawn up by those affiliated with east coast financiers and industrialists. That is who they work for and always will work for : Wall Street, finance, and international industry.

It is a rather new phenomenon over the past several decades that this group of scoundrels have adopted a social platform that panders to those in rural areas with traditional values and in doing so have fooled both their supporters and their opposition to conclude that this is what makes them "conservatives."

Bottom line the people who count within the Republican party and call all of the shots are internationalists and corporatists. Their deception is nothing short of genius. The conservative voting blocks in the South used to be able to see through them ,and for most of the last century, it was unheard of for a Southerner to vote for a Republican because it was simply common knowledge that they were East coast industrialists only concerned with East coast financial interests and who held little regard for the working class people of the United States. As the Democrat party adopted social positions that were antithetical to the traditional values of these people, it has had an oil and water effect and the New York Rockefeller type Republicans greedily stepped in to scoop them up by paying lip service to their shocked sensibilities.

Voila, you have the current political climate of Corporatists swindling numbskulls, and Republicans controlling all branches of the federal government and the majority of State governors. Mmmmmmm, can you smell the facism ???

This we agree on and until we get our house in order and return to limited government with a checked executive - the internationalist agenda will continue to rocket forward regardless of who holds office.

False set of choices. No one sensible is asking for some kind of militarized border with towers and machine gun nests, we are only asking that our current sets of laws be applied faithfully.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, please do not call the Left drones who all think alike and then get mad when individual Leftists violate your expectations and stereotypying by agreeing with Bush on something (as you do in this thead).

Oh my, grammar police duties are in order:

You cannot say: "Are you fucking drones... whatever honeypot they are told..." Please keep the article indicating the referent consistent.

Please don't end sentences with prepositions (to, of, etc.) unless to avoid doing so would be unnecessarily clumsy.

You say: "You know what I find hysterical is that the idiot 'left' is embracing the idea of the executive branch..." If you use "you know what..." then you have to put a question mark after the word "hysterical." Otherwise, you have to say "What I find hysterical..." If you fail to do so, you are essentially writing a sentence such as "What is the recipe for Chicken Kiev it has ingredients X, Y, Z..."

Normally I won't point out grammatical mistakes, but if you are going to condescend like you are smarter and better than all of us, I must insist that you actually construct your insulting diatribes as if you were such.

I did leave them out, yes, to make a point, I also left out LBJ, who was the first to use the CIC expansion to conduct a war base purely on ideology, without a Congressional declaration.

This is a bit of an oversimplification - Southern Democrats (Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson era) voted with Republicans on domestic issues for decades. And part of the genesis of the modern Republican party (the "southern strategy"is actually the Dixiecrats.

I also think that the balance is about to shift.

Cool. Let's start by locking up employers.

And you're "skilled" at making false analogies, congratulations. Who exactly is praising the US for simply not enforcing immigration? And don't give me your "the left" whipping boy. They've (well, we've) been calling for immigration reform as well, just usually different plans with different foci than the president's. The only thing I take from this is that he's a shitty president who can't execute his duties. If he had, the discussion of reforming immigration might actually have more merit.

You're comparing bad enforcement of a law (with the call for reform) to the president agreeing to sign a bill into law, but with the caveat that he doesn't ever have to do anything about it, even stating that he is above the law. I wouldn't expect him to handle execution of immigration any better than he handles anything else, but to flagrantly violate laws with blatant disregard for their jurisdiction is truly a separate, and much more dangerous, matter.

At least he's gotten something right...

Through the years Pat has kinda mellowed in certain ways. He no longer comes across as the pitchfork carring leader of some fictional silent majority, he's more the old man telling you how it used to be (but never was) and how it should be. He's harmless these days, but the partisan in me wants to see him further split up the right. His book was number 1 on the Amazon charts, so he's definitely getting attention.

I think in this case he just missed a comma.

As in: "You know, what I find hysterical is that ..."



Carry on