First of all, I think that you have just broken Ann’s admonition by calling my responses insufferable babble. But we’ll let her call you on that one.

Let’s try to keep this in perspective. Over thirty percent of our state general fund is spent for education, health care and penal costs of illegal aliens. That does not take into account the direct costs to citizens who are the victims of additional crime, which the City of Phoenix states that 80% of all new crime since 2000 is directly attributable to illegal aliens. How much does that raise the auto, homeowner and other insurance rates not even counting the deductibles and not reported.

Now lets look at some of outrageous projected cost increases by the amnesty folks. [I do not agree that the actual costs will rise this much, but lets take their figures for fun.]

We have determined that the farmer gets six cents per head of lettuce to cover land, machinery, materials, and profit (which is only 1/20th of the retail cost for a head of lettuce in Safeway) and if we double his labor costs for harvesting it would raise that cost to nine cents. You can get ten sandwiches per head of lettuce so your cost goes up three tenths of one cent. If we do the same calculations on the other produce items, it would add approx. two more cents assuming an increase of 50% in harvesting labor costs.

Most of the other items you mention have not been suggested by even the amnesty people to be impacted as highly percentage wise as the farm labor costs. So you see, the whole argument is spun by professionals to scare people with no foundation in fact.

As to the tax reductions, we, again, have historical evidence that your allegations are fallacious. When you secure the border, require employers to verify legal status through the Basic Pilot Program, enforce the laws by not allowing illegals to receive social services, food stamps, AFDC, etc. etc. you lower the number of people applying for those benefits.

In addition, the legal residents who are able bodied and receiving government benefits will be able to get a better paying job and become taxpayers, not tax users. Also, if your theory of increased wages occurs, the tax receipts will increase because of the increased pay and all of the people on payrolls will actually be paying their taxes. What a concept.

Do not forget that over three billion dollars of the current state of arizona budget goes to illegals in only three budget areas – and that does not include the amount the federal government gives away.

I appreciate your input, but I do not believe you are aware of both the micro and macro economics of the drain on the citizens of this state.

PS: When Jack in the Box raised the cost of the Jumbo Jack last year, they raised it thirty cents each. That is a whole lot of profit margin and that was with the illegal alien cheap labot at its best – or worst.

I have no doubt the crossover vote is a sure thing to happen. That is why we have secret ballots…but beware that may go away soon, too. Especially if the unions (and Dems) are involved!

What is the statute of limitations on such actions?

We have gone ’round and ’round over this; continue if you must, but what people do…even what I spoke of above, is their prerogative. It is ours to accept them as leaders or not. If some see them as admirable and on the balance scale of good and evil, if certain deeds outweigh the bad,… well, if in your mind that is OK… so be it. But please be as gracious in your acceptance of others. Look at what makes us similar, isn’t that what a “party” is about? The differences have always been there, Reagan didn’t makeup all that “big tent” “11th amendment” stuff just because he thought it sounded cool!

It is our party, our conservative core that is at stake. Again, it is the ownership of one’s values as superior to that of another that is the crux of this issue. Get over yourselves or you can bet the Dems will prove us irrelevant.

Your post #9 is dead on. There are probably three factions. Unfortunately for most of us two of them being the very far left of the party and very far right of the party which comprise about a total of 10% of the party but whose people are the most committed to this intra-party battle and are willing to do anything, including splitting the party right in half to accomplish there goals. I, for one, won’t vote for a so-called liberal Republican in a primary, but I am not willing to destroy the party to purge them out. The price is simply too high. I guess, for me, its a question of priorities. I don’t like Republicans who endorse Democrats. I wish they would change their registrations, but I am not willing to go to all out war to get rid of them. It’s simply not worth it with so much else at stake. Unfortunately for 10% on each fringe of the party, it’s the only thing they seem to be willing to fight for right now and we are letting them split the party apart. I lay blame on both sides.

I don’t know where to start to address your insufferable babble.

Let us begin with your argument on post cheap labor cost stabilization. Specifically, the McDonald’s example. The cost of the hamburger is not just the labor cost of the burger flipper, cashier and janitor at the restaurant. There is a labor cost of the lettuce, meat, bun, sauce, bag, napkins, warehouse and distribution systems. Margins in retail are razor thin.

How do figure your tax bill would go down 30% ? If anything, it will go up as millions of people who will suddenly find themselves out of work will swarm the system. Don’t be naïve in thinking there will be a dash back across the border. It is better to be poor in this country than in Mexico. Think about it.

I do agree we need to enforce our current laws and secure the border. That is a no brainer.

As far as your comment about inaccurate or misleading information, you are a blue ribbon winner. Many of the people who enjoy and post on SA are quite active and actually know the real truth, not the half-truths you spew like a broken sprinkler.

Finally, I don’t take sides on this site and find merit in all points of view. Sometimes, I agree with Ann, sometimes not. You can not box the Nightcrawler.

Boys,
How’s that for a start… anyway, I do understand the difference between core values and egocentricity. As a matter of fact, Tim made it very clear in his post; some people can’t seem to believe it isn’t about them. Such is the case when the right is might viewpoint is not a reflection of an absolute belief in an issue but in the ownership of the issue. Then any contrary viewpoint is seen as a personal attack and not a reflection of another’s perspective from which personal growth just might be possible.

I think you do not understand the difference between core values and egocentricity.

I am sure that the Tories used some of the same terms you use to explain Adams, Jefferson, Revere, and especially Hancock, that self-centered guy who had to have his signature bigger than anyone else.

Let me quote the leader in the rebirth of our Party almost fifty years ago. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Right now, 91% of the Republicans in this state are opposed to the CRAP McCain/Kennedy Bill. The senior senator from this state finds it “regrettable” that SCOTUS rules that the RTL in Wisconsin should have been allowed to educate the public on a vital issue re: Sen. Herb Kohl. His minions bankroll an operation with Democrat money in an effort to take out a Republican District Chair. They also bankroll the intentional public attacks on the Party Chairman and state without equivocation that they hope the Party goes bankrupt and achieves total failure. And there is so much more.

These egocentric actions are what damage the Party to the Independents and less active Republicans. The outsider looking at an organization usually knows what the organization says its core values are and when those core values are routinely violated by the elected leaders of the organization with impunity, the outsider automatically discounts the value of the organization.

There are Pro-Choice people who believe in all of the other planks of the Platform, and that can be OK. It is not OK to form a WISH organization, call it Republican, have the officers endorse Janet and expect that all of the rest of the Republican Party will think that is acceptable.

It is at that point that they become RINOS, because they are registered Republican in order to be affiliated with the majority Party while actually working to undermine the Party. It is those actions that bring out the vicious and retaliatory language and that includes those that support that type of activity with their money or their time.

Then others are offended by the rhetoric. Go figure. To go to your other point, random support by a Republican is their right, but not by an elected PC, SC, or other Party leader. At that point, you should decide whether the overall good is best accomplished as a Republican Party Officer or as a Republican who wishes to work publicly against Republican candidates or established Party Policies.

BTW Ann, I had to add the S. to my name ’cause some other guy showed up calling himself Tim. So don’t get us confused!

I absolutely agree, which is why I have such a hard time with the labeling and name calling of those within our party. Do I support the opposing R candidate in the primary against an incumbent for whom I have no respect or admiration or do I smear him and try to discredit him at every turn during his term. Use his name as a negative reference and anyone I dislike I label one of “those” types? Does it not reflect poorly on our party as a whole and smack of egocentricity to believe an individual right is so important as to supersede the needs of the party for which they profess loyalty and may hold a leadership position?

If I am not as enamored of a plank or two but am a stalwart supporter of all else; am I not as worthy of the label Republican as the guy who also disagrees with a plank or two but my planks strike a different nerve? Or they are not the up front and personal issues that the loudest group, if not the largest, agree upon?

I have a hard time understanding some of the double standards. The ability to forgive and forget does seem to be selective. I would love to ask you some very specific questions, but that would be seen as divisive and maybe rightfully so, therefore I will not go down that road. But I would ask if an examination of past practice in name calling, labeling, and factious actions within the party itself is more detrimental to the party than the random support of a Dem? And what of someone who has done both, supported a Dem in the general and been among the name callers, or maybe donated to a liberal cause or candidate? Is it justified if the circumstance is the right one and the right issue? Or is it dependant on the person, and the crowd they are aligned with?

I think not. But, that is not the conventional practice of our party today. There is no aspersion meant in the above paragraph but an example of the reality of our situation. The duality of right and wrong is more dangerous to our party than any liberal candidate or cause.

We may disagree, we may even strongly disagree, but there is only one part of the Party that goes out and endorses/works for Democrats in contested general elections and it is those who are out of step with the major planks of our platform – pro-life, small government, personal liberty, the Constitution including the second amendment, parental choice in education.

You do not have to agree with all of the planks of the Platform, just as many people do not agree with all the traffic laws, but until you have the ability to change the rules, as elected leaders in your precinct/legislative district, you should support those who are candidates for your party.

We might not agree 100%, but it is never OK as a Republican elected official to work against a Republican candidate in the general. That goes to the original plea for Unity – the mantra of our former Chairman who was unified only with the Congressional Delegation and the Chamber/ Central Avenue R’s so he could make his mid-six figures as a lobbyist while supposedly leading the grass roots Republicans.

Even if you had trouble voting for “G”, it is totally inappropriate to endorse or actively work for the Democrat. If it was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, gun control activist “G” against former Governor Casey from PA, it would be tough for me not to vote for Casey, but it would be wrong to publicly do anything to help him.

As to platform, is it the whole platform or only parts of it that count? Can you be a pro-life, gun toting, free-speech loving, non-school voucher believer and still maintain your party pedigree? Or, if you feel some gun control is a good thing, is your membership card revoked? If so, we are in big trouble at the presidential level because the platform is not represented at all to such a degree.

My point being, the platform may be made of planks that do not meet a one size fits all but it is a much closer fit than the planks of the other side. And if I do not want to be a part of the Independents who carry their ideas in a loosely woven basket, allowed to be tossed around without regard to the integrity, am I not welcome?

A platform is never reached by a unanimous vote but rather out of consensus. Do all who are part of the process agree 100% with every word and phrase? Probably not, so why should those who choose to identify with the majority of the party belief system not be as entitled?

The very premise of unity is to establish majority as much as possible. The use of random anecdotal accounts of Dems winning do nothing but further divide and separate us. Past bad practices do not excuse future mistakes.

Now, I would have a very hard time voting for Rudy Giuliani, yet he is an “R”. He is pretty far left social issues but given the choice of him or Hillary, or worse yet Edwards… it’s a no-brainer! A real lib or a sometimes lib….I’ll take Rudy!