Re: Re: Immigration Question (Part 1)

LJ,

I have no idea why CNN would call it that...unless what the committee's approval was of something different...or blended. I haven't been able to keep up. That's why I wanted to remove all the political stuff from my question.

But you're right about your post "the overall problem with politics, talk-radio, right v left, etc." On the other hand, that is a "problem" I'm not willing to give up. Politics, like capitalism, is about competition....products, services or ideas. I'm not willing to give up the freedom to speak even if it leads to such a problem however much I'd prefer civility and cool logic. I want the most free Marketplace of Ideas we can get even if it's painful. The best idea should win. If, on occasion, it does not as it might not here, show me the better system.

For the more specifics of your post: The right's "base" will not support McCain's/Kennedy's bill. I don't get Medved in the PPA (People's Republic of Austin) and I'm actually surprised that he'd support Kennedy/McCain/McCain/Kennedy...unless it is just from the practical/pragmatic aspect of those already here (the dreaded "amnesty" issue).

At first I thought that the more interesting bit of your post was why Medved would call it the McCain bill...unless it was to embarrass McCain. That was before I realized that you said Medved supported it.

Now, breaking my own rule of the question:

If we did put up the "WALL," can you imagine the EPA impact reports that would be required? "There are bears returning to Big Bend, Mr. INS/Homeland Security Guy, how can you put up a wall here?"

Hint as to the answer of my own question: If he's wearing a gang tat, send him back.