Thoughts on Chandra Levy

[PLC1]

First, it really is sick that we can allow this kind of thing in America. Some might ask why I say we allow it, but follow me on this...

Ingmar Guandique is the one that possibly did this. An illegal immigrant. The left in our country is against secure boarders, and we've allowed them to prevent the fence to be put up.

Why did we allow this? How did Ingmar get in here? Same way everyone else we don't want here, gets in. Across the Texas boarder with Mexico. He openly admits he was one of 50. What crimes did they commit?

Of course he had a job with *CONSTRUCTION* in Washington DC. Ring a bell? Something about a stimulus package that allowed federal dollars to be spent on illegals?

Now after he attacked two women in the most defenseless location in the entire union, namely Washington D.C. where you practically need a permit to have long finger nails, he's serving time in prison.

So now law enforcement is racing to get the case against him finished before... he get's paroled! Not deported... paroled! Why are we even considering paroling an illegal that has committed crimes?

Do any of the leftists get a clue why conservatives see things the way we do?

I also noted on CNN, that they <sarcasm> forgot </sarcasm> which party the married, cheater, Condit was affiliated with.

I really feel for the parents of this poor beautiful girl. Even though she should not have been messing with a married man, and even less so, a democrat congressmen. Chappaquiddick anyone?

When you say the left, are you talking about the left who were in power in Congress and the Whitehouse from 2000 to 2006 and did nothing at all about illegal immigration, or do you mean the leftists who were in power in the '80s when they passed the amnesty bill?

Sometimes, I'm not sure just which leftists you mean.

I'm also curious about who the conservatives are who would like to actually put an end to illegal immigration. There must not be enough of them in Washington to accomplish much.

But, regardless, the leftists who obviously make up a huge majority of both of the major parties, and have for fifty plus years, don't have a clue about why the voters think we need to put an end to people just coming across the border with no controls at all.

 

[Andy]

When you say the left, are you talking about the left who were in power in Congress and the Whitehouse from 2000 to 2006 and did nothing at all about illegal immigration, or do you mean the leftists who were in power in the '80s when they passed the amnesty bill?

Sometimes, I'm not sure just which leftists you mean.

Yes, that includes Bush and McCain. Further, it includes all those supporting Amnesty in Congress.

However there is a difference between the 80s and now. In the 80s, it had never been done before, and it was assumed that the other provisions of the bill would end illegal immigration. Of course, those assumptions were all wrong.

Now, there is no excuse for bad legislation. Only leftist try a failed idea over and over and hope for a different result.

Again, you seem to get stuck in the label game. Bush was never a "great conservative". Neither was his father. Very few are 100% conservative, or 100% liberal. Even people on this thread tend to be 99% one or the other, and then you'll hit one issue where they are the complete opposite on.

Bush was conservative in a few ways, but in others he was very liberal. Amnesty, to me is a liberal ideal. It's based on the "everyone has the same rights" theory that allows liberals to favor giving Gitmo detainees the same rights as US civilians. Or illegal immigrants the same rights. Not only that, but it makes the problem worse, by creating a reward for breaking laws. The same theory that allows us to use tax money to educating and train prison inmates as a reward for breaking the law.

I'm also curious about who the conservatives are who would like to actually put an end to illegal immigration. There must not be enough of them in Washington to accomplish much.

Very true. Which is why we need to find the one in support of Amnesty, and vote them out.

But, regardless, the leftists who obviously make up a huge majority of both of the major parties, and have for fifty plus years, don't have a clue about why the voters think we need to put an end to people just coming across the border with no controls at all.

Not exactly. The 2007 Amnesty bill was shot down, and only 12 Republicans voted for it. Of course McCain is a democrat. Not sure why they even keep the charade going.

http://conservative.org/pressroom/2007/070628S1639votes.htm

As for the 2006 Amnesty bill, 32 republicans voted against it, while only 4 democrats did. One democrat was a DINO, who should likely apply for membership to the republican party. Two other democrats didn't vote, meaning they were likely for it, but didn't want to risk a backlash.

Point being, the majority of republicans never support this. It was a minority that were in favor of it.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, that includes Bush and McCain. Further, it includes all those supporting Amnesty in Congress.

However there is a difference between the 80s and now. In the 80s, it had never been done before, and it was assumed that the other provisions of the bill would end illegal immigration. Of course, those assumptions were all wrong.

Now, there is no excuse for bad legislation. Only leftist try a failed idea over and over and hope for a different result.

Again, you seem to get stuck in the label game. Bush was never a "great conservative". Neither was his father. Very few are 100% conservative, or 100% liberal. Even people on this thread tend to be 99% one or the other, and then you'll hit one issue where they are the complete opposite on.

Bush was conservative in a few ways, but in others he was very liberal. Amnesty, to me is a liberal ideal. It's based on the "everyone has the same rights" theory that allows liberals to favor giving Gitmo detainees the same rights as US civilians. Or illegal immigrants the same rights. Not only that, but it makes the problem worse, by creating a reward for breaking laws. The same theory that allows us to use tax money to educating and train prison inmates as a reward for breaking the law.



Very true. Which is why we need to find the one in support of Amnesty, and vote them out.



Not exactly. The 2007 Amnesty bill was shot down, and only 12 Republicans voted for it. Of course McCain is a democrat. Not sure why they even keep the charade going.

http://conservative.org/pressroom/2007/070628S1639votes.htm

As for the 2006 Amnesty bill, 32 republicans voted against it, while only 4 democrats did. One democrat was a DINO, who should likely apply for membership to the republican party. Two other democrats didn't vote, meaning they were likely for it, but didn't want to risk a backlash.

Point being, the majority of republicans never support this. It was a minority that were in favor of it.

If the majority of Republicans never support amnesty, if they're really in favor of putting a final end to illegal immigration, why didn't they do so when they were in charge of both Congress and the White House?

You can say that conservatives are against illegal immigration. OK, that may be so, but neither of the two major parties have done squat to end it. It may be a conservative vs liberal issue, maybe, but there is no way that the Republicans can pin the pro illegal label on the Democrats and be credible. Of course, they can fool some people who haven't been paying attention into thinking that Democrat = in favor of illegal immigration while Republican = against, but that is simply not so. Neither party has a shred of credibility when it comes to illegal aliens.

 

[Andy]

If the majority of Republicans never support amnesty, if they're really in favor of putting a final end to illegal immigration, why didn't they do so when they were in charge of both Congress and the White House?

There is a huge difference between a majority of conservatives, and a majority of republicans. As I've been trying to point out, these are not the same.

Let us say for example, that roughly 11% of the republicans are not conservative. That would still be a vast majority (89%) that were against Amnesty. However, in the 109th Congress from 2005 to 2007, the republicans only held the senate with 55 to 45.

The democrats, as noted above, are almost uniformly for Amnesty. Thus if only 11% of the republicans are closet liberals, that would tip the vote 49 to 51, wouldn't it?

That might sound far fetched, but when you consider McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, which are nothing more than democrats who run around with republican name badges, it's not hard to imagine two more joining the crowed.

In other words, republicans might hold the majority, but that doesn't always mean conservatives do.

You can say that conservatives are against illegal immigration. OK, that may be so, but neither of the two major parties have done squat to end it. It may be a conservative vs liberal issue, maybe, but there is no way that the Republicans can pin the pro illegal label on the Democrats and be credible. Of course, they can fool some people who haven't been paying attention into thinking that Democrat = in favor of illegal immigration while Republican = against, but that is simply not so. Neither party has a shred of credibility when it comes to illegal aliens.

Not exactly. A lot of people do not know what was, or is in the Immigration Reform Bill. Technically it's still in the bill, since the bill could be brought up for debate any day. The bill was never killed. It passed the senate, and is in waiting to be discussed in the House.

But to the point at hand, the bill did include Amnesty, which is why people went nutz over it. However, it also had a lot of other things too.

• Border Tunnel Prevention Act, which would allow the government to give stiff penalties for trying to build a tunnel under the boarder, with fees and confiscation of property to those who finance it.
  
• Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2006, provides money to pay for boarder patrols.
  
• Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
  
• Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act which would provide for the fence and other infrastructure to secure the boarder, including electronic detection.
  
• An employer compliance fund, to push businesses for complying with immigration laws.

So, there was a real attempt by some to fix this problem. I should note that, in 2007 when the democrats came into power, another Amnesty bill was sent up for debate. Unlike the republican bill, this bill was simply an Amnesty bill. No attempt was made to fix the problem at all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Had he been honest the real killer might not have gotten away for so long.

Yeah....that always works....

​

 

[Andy]

Yeah....that always works....

​

Well lying hasn't worked for Clinton, nor Condit, and clearly it hasn't worked for you.

 

[kathaksung]

Chandra Levy's case

Though Federal law enforcement agency hold big power, they still have a little check and balance in legislation such like they need legislation's approve for their "Patriot Act". When Rep. Gary Condit's case happened, I had a feeling it's almost the second edition of Clinton and Lewinsky scandal. All these need intelligence operation behind curtain. Affairs revealed, politicians told a lie try to cover the scandal, then evidence appeared to discridit them. At first, I didn't know why Condit was chosen. I got it when I saw the news said he is a member of 'intelligence committee'. A committee which oversees Federal law enforcement agency. That's the way they played once and again in peace time. Though Gary Condit was found having no relationship to Levy's death, he lost his nomination.

Why Chandra Levy had to die?

In Lewinsky scandal, Lewinsky and Linda Trip played a role of TIPS. They revealed the affair by a delibrate phone record. Nobody likes them. Nobody wants his privacy being secretly recorded by his friend.

So there is nobody want to play Linda Trip any more. If they want a scandal, and Chandra Levy had self dignity and refused to be a second Paula Jones, what would be the result?

Perhaps she did not want to play a role like that, Chandra was going for another job in state prison. Her death happened before her leaving. The last chance to use her in a scandal.

The news said she checked the map of the site before she going for the jogging. She was meeting an aquaintance for an appointment. It's obvious. Only she didn't know she had to die if she insisted not to be second Paula Jones.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who needs a "conservative" lynch-mob, when there are educated-people available?​