Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:20:10 PM
^Why? It didn't work in '86.

Exactly and please use the quote function.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
Exactly

I'm not following. Care to elaborate?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 10:12:48 PM
I'm not following. Care to elaborate?

Simple. Obama's entire presidency has been an introduction into what liberalism truly is.  Democrats never run as liberals. They run as moderates. Democrats have been forced to enact their agenda incrementally. Obama was their chance to finally move this country all the way to the left.  However as soon as he began the country revolted. Obamacare, the stimulus, taxes, his economic policies etc. He scares people. The country is finally understanding how destructive Democrats are. Amnesty will just help us in November. All of his policies have been enacted against the will of the people. Amnesty is no different.

I'm cynical myself when it comes to the States, they can enact any policies they wish in regards to enforcing immigration law, including ones that offer illegal aliens subsidies hand over fist. It's their choice, if they want to ruin themselves, let them. They will be examples for others (not) to follow.

Federally however, it's a different story. Amnesty would both drag along people in a ride they don't wish for, and further establish a false dilemma.

The choice here *isn't* just Amnesty or Border security, Barry Goldwater himself saw that:

"Don't offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government's responsibility to determine who is here legally.

Start a guest worker program to "channel the flow" of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.

And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced. "

Goldwater wanted what Eisenhower had, a system that served as a sorting funnel for all immigrants coming to this country. And that is the real choice here. Either we have an immigration system that offers open access, with conditions as needed, or, we can have a black market in labor.

We currently choose the latter. Amnesty will encourage it.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 12:16:32 AM
I'm cynical myself when it comes to the States, they can enact any policies they wish in regards to enforcing immigration law, including ones that offer illegal aliens subsidies hand over fist. It's their choice, if they want to ruin themselves, let them. They will be examples for others (not) to follow.

Federally however, it's a different story. Amnesty would both drag along people in a ride they don't wish for, and further establish a false dilemma.

The choice here *isn't* just Amnesty or Border security, Barry Goldwater himself saw that:

"Don't offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government's responsibility to determine who is here legally.

Start a guest worker program to "channel the flow" of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.

And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced. "

Goldwater wanted what Eisenhower had, a system that served as a sorting funnel for all immigrants coming to this country. And that is the real choice here. Either we have an immigration system that offers open access, with conditions as needed, or, we can have a black market in labor.

We currently choose the latter. Amnesty will encourage it.

Who is this directed to?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 12:37:41 AM
Who is this directed to?

You, but I underlined "unfairly" to stress an earlier argument.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:03:13 AM
You, but I underlined "unfairly" to stress an earlier argument.

Why not use the quote function?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 01:33:26 AM
Why not use the quote function?

The forum I've been on the longest discourage its use when it's not necessary.

Either the ^ or a @name usually suffices.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:40:24 AM
The forum I've been on the longest discourage its use when it's not necessary.

Either the ^ or a @name usually suffices.

The owner of this site spent nearly a million dollars constructing our quote function so he wants to get his money's worth.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:40:24 AM
The forum I've been on the longest discourage its use when it's not necessary.

Either the ^ or a @name usually suffices.

Adjust.

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 29, 2014, 03:04:10 AM
Adjust.

It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.

It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.

After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 03:37:02 AM
It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.

It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.

After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.

You will find most of us have been using the quote function for over 20 years.  On this board please use the quote function.  It's helps our Guests follow along also. 

He's been repeatedly warned and every time has come up with some mealymouthed excuse to not follow basic rules here. How freaking long must this charade continue? Time him out for a while.

Quote from: quiller on August 29, 2014, 05:17:52 AM
He's been repeatedly warned and every time has come up with some mealymouthed excuse to not follow basic rules here.

Then can you point me to the thread or anywhere else where they're listed? I can't seem to find them.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 03:37:02 AM
It's a rule there so as to keep posts streamlined and from wasting space.

It's for the same reason they discourage "omnislashing", or post-battles where each person is breaking up the other's post into a list of portions to respond to that just grows and grows.

After going there for 7 years, it's ingrained habit for me to decide when and when not to use quoting. I meant no offense.

Dang, you like to argue.  Simply comply with "the rules of THIS forum".  It's really not that difficult.  You spent enough time to type in why you did things here as you did on the other forum/s.  Most of us here have been on other forums.  I was on a local forum 5+years and they had a different forum but adjusting here was easy enough. 

Sometimes, due to poor eyesight, I skip a day or so posting or reading comments and it takes a good amount of reading to catch up.  Say I want to comment on something that someone has said two pages back. If I don't use the quote function, no one will know to whose post I am citing.   Try it 'cause you gonna' give my pal Boo a stroke and then you'll really pizz us off.