Sen. Edward Kennedy

[NVR FNSH]

Re: Earth to Lohtka!

Originally posted by Ram4Sam

While I'm no expert on this, Immigration amnesty deals with people allready here illegally and what to do with them.

True statement

Originally posted by Ram4Sam

Your buddy Ted allready has most of their votes.

'splain Lucy



Exactly how would he ALREADY have the votes of non-citizens?



Some of you people need to take a deep breath. How you made the jump to a personal/republican attack from Lhotka's post is beyond me... .



Brian

 

[Ram4Sam]

Holy moly, another liberal....

I knew there had to be more out there.



From the top:



"Exactly how would he ALREADY have the votes of non-citizens?"



While I don't know for sure about Ted's neighborhood, here in California, non citizens and dead people have been known to vote for democrats. I'm sure voter fraud is not exclusive to California.



"ALREADY" touche'



"attack a Republican" Use a different word if you like for "attack"

Lhotka did the typical liberal sidestep of the isssue at hand, change the subject when you can't defend your position. This usually, as was the case here, means bringing up what some republican is doing about something else.



"Some of you people need to take a deep breath"



You are right about this, liberals and their beliefs can take your breath away!





Sam

 

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by Lhotka

What happened to George Bush's immigration amnesty for thousands of illegal Latin Americans? Anyone have an update? Bush is popular among Latinos in some parts of the U. S. How would his amnesty program contribute to the Republican power base?

Ram4Sam - you're going to have to explain to this 'liberal' exactly how the above statement is the typical liberal side-stepping response. IMO it's a legit question. Bush was pushing pretty hard before 9/11. Haven't heard much from the Bush administration on this since... . There was an article in the local paper about this a couple of weeks ago.

Originally posted by Ram4Sam

This usually, as was the case here, means bringing up what some republican is doing about something else.

Don't see how this applies since GW was talking about essentially the same thing with amnesty. I really don't think this is a case of side stepping/changing the subject.



Brian

 

[Ram4Sam]

let me try to 'splain it from the right side..

Originally posted by Lhotka

What happened to George Bush's immigration amnesty for thousands of illegal Latin Americans? Anyone have an update? Bush is popular among Latinos in some parts of the U. S. How would his amnesty program contribute to the Republican power base?



This is a perfect example of the side step. The subject of this thread is about legal immigration, how many legal immigrants are being processed into the U. S. and how unhappy Ted is with the numbers. Nobody who has responded to this thread has disputed what I said about what Ted's true motivation is here.



Immigration and immigration amnesty are two separate issues. The immigration issue is about people who come here in the future, legally. Immigration amnesty is about what to do with people who are already here, illegally. I thought you agreed that was a true statement.



Lhotka's statement above was in response to what I said about his hero Ted in an effort to defend him. How does bringing up what Bush thinks about a different situation defend Ted? It doesn't, all he did was sidestep the issue and change the subject.



I agree that Bush's ideas are important regarding amnesty but that isn't what this thread is about.



Sam

 

[Lhotka]

Ram4Sam,



Seems like you did a bit of selective reading, then directed your response to those who fail to share your political views. Interesting how you singled out my responses (you claim a liberal tactic) when "FatCat" replied with a comment about Kennedy's weight and some sick suggestion relating to the D. C. area sniper. How do his comments relate to immigration or refugees and September 11th. ? You didn't take issue with "FATCAT" changing the subject or attacking someone. Isn't that what you are whining about NOW? Changing the subject and personal attacks?



If you read carefully, YOU were actually the one who CHANGED the subject from a Refugee/September 11th connection to the Immigrant for Votes topic. I simply responded to your post with a question after YOU changed the subject.



I'll debate you if you can decide on what the issue is.



Have a good day

 

[Ram4Sam]

??????????????

Man Lhotka, you are all over the map on this post. I singled you out because you responded to my comments about your hero Ted. Thats pretty simple. As for FatCat's personal attacks on ol' Teddy, those were his, not mine. As to how his comments relate to immigration/refugees/Sept. 11, why are you asking me what he means? Maybe you should ask him



"Wow... ... talk about a petty argument..... "



Now you are finally focusing!



Sam