Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (2936)	10/29/2008 11:58:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Immigration! But it has to be the right type of immigration. We should be opening up the doors wide open on H-1 visas for professionals. I totally agree.. I thought I'd made that very clear. I'm for creating legalized status (H-1B.. etc) for those who come forth, and especially for those who own homes. If they purchased a home for an interest rate they could previously afford, but it's adjusted upward, then I'm willing to consider including them in any interest rate "reset" upon registration as an legal worker. We must have immigration to create the additional economic demand. This is one of the qualities of American society that we SHOULD PRESERVE. We're all descendants of immigrants. But the difference is that our ancestors were primarily legal immigrants seeking a better future as US citizens, not as people who just come to work and ship their money back home to their families (capital outflow). They came here to become Americans, not engage in a demographic conquest. This is the environment that the Democrats have permitted to transpire. They don't care if these people learn English or not. They don't care if they possess dual loyalties. They don't care if these immigrants hold an equal, or preferable allegiance to their native land over that of America. The democrats have attempted over and over again to utilize the illegals as a voting block, by granting amnesty, economic benefits, low interest loans, and at a local level, even moving to give illegals the right to vote. righttruth.typepad.com Do I get the right to vote in Mexico is move there illegally? And were I to attain legal status as a foreign citizen, should I expect election ballots to be written in English because I was too lazy to learn the local language of my adopted country? Last time I checked, command of English was a prerequisite for US citizenship.. Tell me what happened to undermine that and who's responsible for it. This is not the Republican party that is advancing such inane policies and preventing skilled and deserving foreigners from becoming US citizens. This is the work of the Democratic party. And more of this is what you will be voting for next Tuesday if you vote Democratic. So if it's as important an issue as you assert, then the only party that will work to advance the immigration of LEGAL immigrants, or work to enforce our existing laws is the Republican party. They won't be perfect, but they'll also not be directly working to undermine the sovereignty of this great country. I know you hate Bush.. He's not my favorite either. In fact, I wanted Fred Thompson, but that was not to be. And I know you think Obama is very well-spoken (and he is), and comes across as a moderate. But he's only one man and he didn't get to where he currently is without making a whole of promises to those democrats who chose him over Hillary (who also advocated wholesale legalization of illegals). The cat is out of the bag with regard to illegal immigration and the only hope we have to stem the tide is to vote for those who are most appalled by it.. Namely.. Conservatives and Pragmatists, like myself. You're certainly not going to get it from Obama. He can't deliver the immigration policies you claim he's supporting. His supporters will thwart him at every step and he'll back off because he owes them: barackobama.com He's going to give illegals driver's licenses without requiring them to obtain legal status: sfgate.com Hawk

To: RetiredNow who wrote (2936)	10/30/2008 9:46:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	3 Recommendations Respond to of 86355

But here's something to think about too. Here's something else to think about. When Obama is questioned by "Joe the Plumber" and become entwined in the campaign, guess how government owned computers were used for political purposes to violate his privacy: dispatch.com A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on "Joe the Plumber" were more extensive than it first acknowledged. Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system. That the checks were made merely because this man dare to express is opinion is an appalling abuse of government resources. And the fact that such information was released to the public is a travesty. Sure, Obama supports an investigation. But, once again, my point is that this is the kind of tactics that Obama's supporters are willing to utilize to deflect any negative attention to their candidate. It's not Obama that worries me, it's the people he'll bring along with him. This is what frightens me about Obama. The fanaticism of his supporters and their willingness to violate our civil rights in order to advance their political agenda. It's the Clinton "Filegate" scandal all over again.. And it may cost Obama the election in Ohio if it gains traction prior to the election. Hawk