We must get past "Partisan Politics" in order to resolve problems and

[cidliz2004]

defeat the problems that we are facing today. We are all mixed bags. We should strive for the "bags" to balance more towards us for the positive benefit rather than against us for the negative and detrimental effect. We need to realize that the "bags" are fluid and usually can still be filled and tipped one way or the other at any given time.

So many times "they just became a Democrat!" has been said in a very negative way, as to discount the fact that they are Democrats at all. Kind of like if you aren't a Democrat all of your life you don't really count and are not to ever be respected. Who in their right mind would want to switch over to an organization with leaders that say things like that. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Way too many times I've seen, "....they are Repukes, I don't care what they do now or what they have said...they are still slime..." I personally don't agree with sentiment in any way shape or form. Where ever we can find common ground is a place where we can start to build. To alienate somebody "solely" based on previous affiliation or remarks is to condemn with no hope of "redemption" or "forgiveness".

Since when has ANY of us acted without mistake or misguided reasoning?

That is why I hesitate to completely align myself with any organization - even churches (which I think of as "corporate Christians"), doing so labels people and constricts people to adopt philosophies that they may not necessarily agree with. Refusing to adapt or blend in leads them to be rebuked or outright ostracized. Which helps lead to the ever increasing numbers of the "silent majority" WHY?

While I wholly believe that not standing up for anything translates into standing for nothing. I don't believe that people have to be pigeonholed and stuck with a "label" forever. Although it seems many people feel more comfortable being able to label others one way or another, doing so closes and seals shut many doors. A door sealed shut may lead to many opportunities lost.

Open the door to the "Big Tent" as well as our hearts and minds, lead by example and stop pointing fingers at would be allies because of past transgressions. None of us acts perfectly for the duration of our lives. I get so tired of the "holier than thou" attitude that creeps into discussions time and time again and ends up alienating would be converts.

Standing up for your convictions doesn't automatically translate into be judgmental and unforgiving.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I fell the same way about undocumented workers

that's why I object to a bunch of racist people profiling them and pulling guns on them


While I wholly believe that not standing up for anything translates into standing for nothing. I don't believe that people have to be pigeonholed and stuck with a "label" forever. Although it seems many people feel more comfortable being able to label others one way or another, doing so closes and seals shut many doors. A door sealed shut may lead to many opportunities lost.

[cidliz2004]

2. Although I agree with being open minded and to not allow people to

find common ground with us and to maybe even change....breaking the law makes us criminals...whether you like that fact or not, it is a factual term for people not abiding by our laws. The problem is not wanting to admit that when you break a law you become a criminal and the people that are fighting against this do not automatically have to be "labeled" racists, even though many of them probably are.

It is a knee jerk reaction, identify people crossing the border "illegally" and call them "undocumented" workers, illegal immigrants, aliens, and you AUTOMATICALLY are called a "racist", "bigot".....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. When you violate their 14th, 5th and 8th amendment rights

you also violate the law.

It isn't a knee jerk reaction since a higher percentage of them work than even LEGAL immigrants.

You aren't automatically called a racist or bigot until you defend the bigots profiling them as saviors there to free them from slavery...

[cidliz2004]

4. If they are not citizens of the U.S., they don't have the U.S.

Constitutional rights. They have human rights.

There was a poster that did state that anybody that supported the "minutemen" were bigots.

This discussion isn't about one particular issue.

There doesn't have to be a black or white way of dealing with issues either. Sometimes many on this board seem only capable of dealing in black or white responses to very complex issues, which again goes to my original idea on my post.

[readmoreoften]

5. I believe non-citizens are protected and do have the same rights

hence the issues with gitmo.

[cidliz2004]

8. Could be, I am not sure about that to be perfectly honest.

I don't get how somebody breaking the law is immediately afforded protections though. Like I have stated over and over and over again till nausem, there should be intermediary actions taken over this problem. Forcing people to live as fugitives isn't right either.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Sorry, cidliz2004 ..I meant no offense, but you can now consider

yourself corrected as to whether immigrants legal or not have constitutional rights.

As to your second sentence regarding starving women and children, it is a complete non sequitur to my post. I have no comment.

Honey is not name calling but now that you have indicated displeasure with the term, I shall refrain from using it.

Now...are you clear or not clear that once immgrants legal or illegal reach the US they have rights?

If not, I will gladly answer any questions you may have so that the next time this comes up on a web site, you will respond with the correct answer.

[cidliz2004]

11. I will agree to the fact that they "may" have rights. Will you agree

that when they cross over the border illegally,they are also criminals as defined by our criminal code?

Thank you for clarifying that for me and apology accepted.

As far as people from other countries being afforded the U.S. Constitutional rights,......is this written in stone or is this still being debated? Is there some law somewhere saying "that every person in the world is protected by the U.S. Constitution?"

Not meant to be inflammatory, but I am sincerely wondering about this.

"honey" is a term that I do not appreciate because, to me in the context it was used in,it seems condescending. It may not have been meant this way and I realize this, but my history has shown it to be used in this way either because the person doesn't know your name and calls "everybody" by that or, it was used in a condescending way. Not a big deal I suppose, but for whatever reason I don't see why "honey" is used in any other way except with affection to a loved one.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. No they are not defined as criminals by our codes

They are not defined as being illegal until a hearing takes place to determine their right to be here (again the US constitution protects their rights in that regard.) That is why states cannot go scooping up entrants..that is WHY the federal government has broad powers over this issue. For all you know they may be a refugee or a political asylee.

Every person in the world is NOT protected by the US constitution...every person in the US is. Once they make it here, they are protected from abuse.

Think about it...if only citizens had rights...wouldn't that give corporations even MORE incentives to support illegal entry into the US?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Sorry..by my logic and the US constitution, thieves aren't thieves

until they are convicted.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. You're attacking my integrity for believing people are innocent until

proven guilty? How very undemocratic of you!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. The problem isn't with my integrity.

The problem is with you equating what I would do in order to follow the law with how I would regard someone who has been convicted of nothing.

Your point is a poor one which is why you must rely on attacking me to make it.

God's law may be yours to follow but not to impose on others.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I now understand the logic that allows you to declare people criminals

before any judicial hearing has taken place to determine if it is, in fact, true. That's all I need to know.

In your free time, please read the constitution since how we got to this very enlightening discussion was based on what you said you CALL PEOPLE before there has been any court hearing to determine if they have, in fact, broken a law.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. That's fine. But claiming people lack integrity if they withhold judgement

on others until they have been determined to be guilty is where you get yourself into trouble.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BillZBubb]

10. Barf!

The other side has been attacking us relentlessly for decades. For most of that time, we played by YOUR RULES and never responded in kind. Look what has happened. The right runs all of government. All the things we (maybe not you, but progressives) hold dear are under siege and falling to the wayside.

The right LOVES people like you. You equate what is going on as equally the fault of both sides, with an equally shared guilt. They win under that scenario every time.

Me, I'm exactly the opposite of you. I think we need to call Repugs out on their hypocrisy at every turn. Things they've done in their past are VERY relevant if: 1) They attack others for similar behavior now, or 2) They show no compassion for others with similar problems, or 3) They distort their past or ours, or 4) They abuse the system to excuse their fellow right wingnuts, or 5) They attack our motives.

This truly is a fight for the soul of the country. We won't win it by surrendering unconditionally.

[cidliz2004]

13. I agree with most of what you say ..... except for.....BARF

What my post was trying to point out that while we want to win back control and fairness in our Government, we criticize and ridicule ANYBODY that comes from another side to ours. So, if we convert somebody to our way of thought - they are not accepted and they are questioned and accused of being on the other side and just being a spy. OR of they agree with us on AN ISSUE, (as McCain does once in a while), we seem to want to throw their support back in their faces because they are not "Democrats".

You have to be realistic here. If you want some of our ideas, agenda realized in Washington, we need votes from the "enemy" or the "enemy" will win everything.

Of course we need to pick them apart and throw them to the wolves as we battle them. They are our opponents and way too many of them are hippocrites.

One of the most effective ways to defeat them however is to try to turn them against each other and to seek out dissenters from their party and to persuade them to agree with us wholly or at least on an issue we are fighting for.

I am in danger of feeling that all Repugs are venemous assholes, but I try to keep myself from falling into that totally, because I realize that there are many of them that will come to our side if we give them a chance and don't force them to stay where they are because the door to our tent is firmly shut.

[SaintLouisBlues]

12. (My Fantasy) President Jed Bartlet on partisan politics:

"Partisan politics is what the Founders had in mind. It guarantees that the minority opinion is heard, and as a lifelong possessor of minority opinions, I appreciate it.

[kentuck]

25. How are you going to get by "partisan politics" when....

the other side is trying to destroy everything you have ever believed in or worked for? How? Give an example.