Jun 27 2007
Two “Optimistic” Views On The Immigration Bill
Putting aside the wails of the end of America as we know it from the Amnesty Hypochondriacs (and yes, I am so done with their caterwhalling) there are some people out there still striving for a good bill. Here is one I found at RCP with a list of additions to the bill I could support – many of which I could also live without. There is no 100% solution and I tire of the fantasies there will be one. And of course the WSJ is out today reminding us all that there is damage to the GOP no matter which way this issue goes.
In my opinion much less damage if the bill passes and the hotheads walk home with their marbles. Not to mention we start to make progress and stop wallowing in the current mess. But wouldn’t it be much quieter and saner in this country if the hotheads, left and right, went home to stew and pout? Ah yes…. It would be! So maybe we should pass this bill just to frustrate them to the point the stomp off the political stage for an election cycle??? Seems reasonable to me. Sadly, I think Hannity will keep moaning about what a great American he is and how un-America everyone who disagress with him is….
But that is why God created FM radio!
Which bill is the bill is a vital question at this point.
Per the Thomas.gov site S1639 shows up as a differently titled law but has the text of the revised immigration bill.
Additional searching shows a total of 109 registered amendments to S1639.
Harry Reid is not a sponsor nor Kennedy to any of those amendments
However NZ bear has the Reid amendment up as a 357 page pdf and also searchable html.
The Thomas bill does not correspond in structure or format to the Reid bill which seems to be a total substitution by replacement of 1639.
AJ,
Are you going to support the fairness doctrine when the democrats present it for consideration? I wonder if they will stop at talk radio?
Sue,
At this point, I really don’t care one way or another about the Fairness Doctrine.
I don’t imagine you do, at this point. When they come after your blog though you might feel differently.
The fairness doctrine is a mythology of the left. Talk radio is destroying itself the point is pretty much moot.
But no, I don’t support it. Fail to see the connection! LOL! Is this another conspiracy theory were I am part the far left because I oppose the hypochondriacs on immigration???
Conspiracy theory? I don’t do those. Far left? I’ve never claimed you were part of anything. Wrong on immigration, but you already know how I feel about your views on that.
The connection is simple.
Plus your earlier comments referring to Hannrushlevin, or something like that. I was curious to know how you felt about the fairness doctrine.
There are several prominent democrats who don’t think the FD is a mythology. And a few republicans who are taking them seriously.
Sue,
The FD is unconstitutional and cannot stand the legal tests, thus it is an urban myth. I think people should be concerned whenever one party tries to restrict free speech, but that is more to show the weakness of their cause not the fact they could push FD through Congress and the Courts.
It is a joke. We have a lot more important, real issues to deal with.
I don’t think the fairness doctrine is constitutional either. But then again I refuse to listen to Savage and Limbaugh and Hannity anyway. I have lost a lot of respect for them.
Not to mention Malkin in her little cheerleader outfit on You Tube and Debbie Shussel constantly threatening to sue everyone.
No, I have about as much use for these people as I do Howard Stern. They are all shock jocks, out to make a buck.