Redstate

has lots of honor

He does.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Huck supporters just seem to throw everything back to Romney. They can't defend him, all they have is but what about Mitt. Reading here today, it seems like the Hucksters are a lot like the average Lib; take no responsibility, and attack someone else.

They Huckbots have two strategies for dealing with critics.

#1 Slander/libel the critic

#2 Change the subject by saying that some other candidate is worse.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

That's irrelevant, yo. Or is your idea that there's only a certain amount of shiftiness to go around, so if one politician has flip-flopped it means that his opponent can't be a liar.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Your comment is not germane. This post is about Huckabee not Romney.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Huck clearly said that the rule was attendance from the age of 5 or 6, etc., etc. No parsing necessary or acceptable.

convicted of perjury! He did not "clearly say" that ONLY those that so attended qualified.

When we overstate our cases by leaping to the "lie" word, we hurt our own credibility.

Lawyer FoghornLeghornDeVineGamecockJudgeRoyBean has spoken

smile

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

What you are saying reminds me of another former Arkansas Governor who said

It all depends on what the meaning of is is.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Ah shucks, you beat me to it. Huckabee, Pro-life Bill Clinton in Republican Clothes.

Thanksgiving!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

until in the mood for fowl sustenance myself, in which case you get thrown under the best.

Huckabee is spinning, but not lying.

licenses, and so would have most likely been brought by their parents.

I really do think to say he lied is overstated (unlike the now un-schliek, Der Schliekmeister and his "is-isms").

Was it possibly misleading? yes
Lie is too strong.

I realize I could be corrupted in identifying lies (although I am not hesitant to do as on less than a preponderance against the LEFT, beacuse I KNOW them) given the 3 years at lie, I mean law school, and 14 years speaking to juries and playing God, but...

well nevermind, I'll leave it to the good folks in the Midwest...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

"on the merits, the 3 yr rule would rule out those with drivers licenses, and so would have most likely been brought by their parents."

I don't know about that. I constantly hear about illegal immigrants driving without licenses, or worse with fraudulent licenses. Plus there are other ways to travel besides in a car with one's parents.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

How about we compromise on "deliberately misrepresented the legislation?"
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

lie about lowering taxes x number of times in Arkansas. But he did raise taxes 21 times for a net affect of higher taxes. Huck doesn't like the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Now that's irony from "the preacher".

What the other candidates now should say on this issue if it ever comes back up is that the 15 year old illegal immigrant that just crossed the border is eligible for this tuition break when they graduate. If that's not a sanctuary law, I don't know what is.

Well, it's not all a lie. He did use the conditional "if" - and the scenario he spins is true. A 6-year-old who spends 10-12 years in school and is an A-student would get to take advantage of the bill.

Huckabee did, however, mislead with his answer by failing to mention that much less is required.

He may have "lied" about the drug/alcohol requirement - unless that is built into the law for all students somewhere else in Arkansas law as I see nothing in the bill to account for it.

And, he seems to be suffering under a layman's delusion about what "intent to legalize status" means - it doesn't take an immigration lawyer to say that even an illegal alien currently NOT in the process of legalizing himself, but who has the intent at some future date to begin that process, would be able to truthfully sign the requisite affidavit and gain the benefit.

Huck didn't perjure himself, but it certainly looks as if he was trying to intentionally hide the full story so that his extreme "generosity" for basically any undocumented kid in Arkansas looked like he was pushing for strict limits of the benefit to truly "deserving" kids (if an undocumented kid can really be "deserving").

Also, I'm behind the curve on the details - was the bill that was engrossed the bill that Huckabee wrote? Did he write a bill? I know he lobbied for this extension of benefits and was public in his support. Was this what he was pushing or was he actually trying to push something even more liberal in its standards, but wound up with legislators who were unwilling to go as far as he did? What he wanted is equally as important as what the law actually said after the Legislature got its hands on it.

And they say Romney is slick

No doubt. The whole truth is foreign to this man's campaigning and the examples of him not telling the whole truth is just scary.

He also throws that A+ student stuff in there even though it has nothing to do with qualifying for instate tuition. The guy does not know how to tell the truth. I'm not even sure he knows what the truth is. It's pathological. He is a WJC that can (I assume) keep it in his pants. That's it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

But think about how misleading this is. If he had said "people who are born citizens will get in-state tuition under this legislation" that would also have been true. Misleading, but true. It's rather like a candidate saying that a particular tax increase was not put through by the legislature and signed by him as governor but passed in an initiative in order to imply that he was not instigator of it, when he was, and campaigned for it.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Let's look at a hypothetical, which will include a strawman argument so that people can see what I mean.

Let's say I'm governor of Missouri. I get the General Assembly to introduce a bill that says that any city which declares itself to be a sanctuary city will get all state funding for anything other than transportation services removed, in essence cutting off funding for social services and other items. In the perfecting process, the Democrats manage to get the full General Assembly to change it to only 50% of funding cut.

Well, when I run for President, do I say that the bill cut it by 50%, and be honest, or fully, and basically tell a lie?

Because that is EXACTLY what Huckabee did. I don't know if his bill was for only 3 years or since 6 years of age, but he touted it as the 6 y/o version when the actual law is only 3 years at a high school.

His "clever wording and phrasology" is the same kind of stuff we get upset with the Dems over. Don't try to change what he did simply because he's your boy.

Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds

Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Or sign it into law?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

...especially when they are not germane to the ongoing discussions.

And Rightly So!

Putting the same note in different threads is spamming. Please don't do that.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I was 7 when I came here, the 6 was a slip of the keyboard.

And 2nd, I would like everyone who is for punishing children of illegals who came here before they were even teens or toddlers to imagine themselves being forced to leave the USA - the only country you really know - and go to some other country, one that is really foreign and strange because you were so young you don't even remember living there.

Or if you are allowed to stay, imagine having to give up your job for some maid or agriculture job where you'll make barley enough money to eat and be poor the rest of your life.

I challenge you to truly imagine going through either one of those ordeals.

Not a pleasant thought is it?

What's not pleasant is that parents would do that to their kids. You see, you're trying to blame us for parents working so hard to break the law, and trying to play emotional games to get us to bend and make exceptions.

Are you suggesting the law is wrong, though? I challenge you to make an argument based on facts and reason, rather than emotion and implication.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The thought of the whole family, illegal alien mom, illegal alien dad, illegal alien kids all being packed up and deported to their home country.

I love it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

So let's throw away Huckabee perfect example and talk plainly about the ramifications of this law. Any 15 year old illegal immigrant can cross the border by themselves and go to Arkansas and enroll in high school and do well and upon graduating become eligible for this benefit. That is the law he passed.

Now a child of a US citizen or even a veteran living in Shreveport, Louisiana which is only 30 minutes away from Arkansas is not eligible for the limited funding of this program but the now 18 year old illigal alien is. That, my friend, is a sanctuary policy.

But as far as I know Huckabee did not write that law. I don't think I've read anything on this thread to the effect of Huckabee signing that bill or writing it or editing it.

The other argument I was making was for children who came here as little kids, not for 15 years olds who came here on their own as by then they must have been aware they are breaking the law. I was making this argument primarily because Huckabee has been saying he was for giving scholarships to kids who went K-12 in Arkansas schools.

This bill posted is obviously different from what Huckabee officially has said he supports, and as I mention in line 1 of this post, I am yet to see proof that this was something he wrote, signed, or edited.

I would argue still, however, that even being aware of breaking the law at age 15, a kid that age may not have much of a choice in being dragged here. I know if my parents wanted to move when I was 15 I would't be able to make rent and bills on my own to defy them.

Now should that kid get special privileges? No. But in-state tuition as far as I know is granted to anyone who lives in that state. If someone from Shrevport, Louisiana moved to Arkansas and lived there 3 years they too would get in-state tuition rates, much like the life long Arkansas resident, and the illegal who did the same. I see equal treatment under the law here.

For those who are having a tough time following the analogies and comparisons, the comparison you are making isn't very valid.

You are trying to provoke "outrage" people that a veteran who served his or her country but lives in another state cannot get in-state tuition in Arkansas, where an illegal alien who has lived there for 3 years or longer and graduated from an Arkansas HS can.

The answer to that is duh, the veteran isn't a resident of Arkansas, so therefore, they cannot get in-state tuition. They can, however, get in-state tuition in whatever state they are from, be it Louisiana or elsewhere. The illegal immigrant, while being able to get in-state Arkansas tuition, cannot get in-state rates at the Louisiana schools that the veteran can.

It's not a very strong or compelling argument.

I want to take one last opportunity to break down this emotional argument you put forth logically.

I will prove this is an emotional argument by taking the emotions out of it. Let's replace the "labels" of who we are talking about with Subject 1 and 2, and their states as A and B. Now let's restate the situation in which we find ourselves in, that you want us to see as an injustice and special boon to illegal aliens (namely, their college age children):

Subject 1 lives in A, therefore, Subject 1 qualifies for special rates in A
Subject 2 lives in B, therefore, Subject 2 qualifies for special rates in B

Subject 1 does not live in B, therefore, Subject 1 does not qualify for special rates in B.
Subject 2 does not live in A, therefore, Subject 1, does not qualify for special rates in A.

Now, where is the outrage?

Thank you, I'll be here all week. :-)

The special rates apply to those who are legal residents of the state. An American citizen who just rents an apartment without taking the steps necessary to establish legal residency, doesn't get the special rate either.

Illegal aliens are legal residents of no state. Your breakdown is incorrect.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Your argument falls on the fact you say that instate rates are for legal residents of the state and that illegal immigrants are legal residents of no state.

This is fundamentally not true. The law, as shown in the original post, does not in the highlighted paragraph that establishes qualification contain the phrase "legal resident". In fact, it says "Any tuition rate that is granted to residents of Arkansas shall be..."

Resident is defined as someone who lives somewhere. It is not specific to any legal status. Had that paragraph read "legal residents of Arkansas", you'd have a case.

Second, what special steps are required to show residency? I think showing your apartment and utility bills that you have been recieving is enough. If it isn't, how else can ANYONE prove residency ANYWHERE?

Anyone, therefore, who really lived in Arkansas for a certain number of years should have no problem claiming residency there to qualify for in-state tuition, whether or not they did anything "special".

As I re-read it seems you may have been just referring to doing something "special" to establish you legally live in the state.

I think there is some miscommunication there.

The way to establish legal residency for a University or College is to write down your address or previous addresses and state how long you lived there. If the University challenges it, you will be asked to show proof, which you can show in the form of letters, utility bills, etc. that were billed in your (or your family's) name to those addresses.

Anyone can do this, legal immigrant, illegal immigrant, or lifelong citizen. And in fact, everyone has to go through the same process.

There are no "special" things I am aware of that you have to do to start establishing "legal residency". Living in the state, and being able to prove that by virtue of renting space, owning property, and paying bills there is your proof.

I've actually spent the last 5 minutes checking the University of Arkansas webpages and can't really find any details yet on in-state tuition requirements.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Are you suggesting that a law which refers to residents of Arkansas does not refer to the legal definition of Arkansas residency?

HTML Help for Red Staters

Here's Arkansas State University's guide to residency. Here's a key definition:

1. "Domicile", in order to constitute one an "in-state" student, means that Arkansas is the legal home and place of permanent living of such student for all purposes, and that the intention to make one's permanent home here has been manifested objectively by good faith acts, and that mere physical presence here is alone insufficient. In this sense, domicile is the equivalent of a legal residence. The rule requires that a domiciliary of Arkansas be also physically present in such domiciliary status in Arkansas for at least six continuous months prior to recognition of that status for fee purposes.

HTML Help for Red Staters

to be a reply for Neil Stevens, but I pressed the wrong button. Sorry :-(

Why wouldn't the parents of the child go with him? He wouldn't be alone, any more than he was alone when he came here in the first place.

HTML Help for Red Staters

1) We haven't established the age of deportation. What if you are discovered and being deported when you are 25? By then you could be living on your own, and not wanting to turn your parents in.

2) Your parents (one or both) could both be dead.

3) You might have bad relations with your parents.

And even if your parents do come with you, is that much of a consolation? Congratulations, you just got kicked out of the American Dream and forced to go back to a country whose language you barley speak (if you can at all), must lose all your existing friends (perhaps even friends you've had for 10 years or more) and remaining family (that's not being deported), but hey, you get to bunk with mom & dad in the Slums of Warsaw, Moscow, Mexico City, or Johannesburg.

If you've lived here for 15 years chances are your parents will be just as lost in your new "home" country as you are, as people, places, and countries change over time.

I know, my family visited Poland for the first time after we've spent 8 years here and other than the few family members we had over there all the old friends, neighbors, and even places of business and employers have changed, moved on, etc.

Maybe it will make some difference, as you won't be 100% alone, sure, but that's like saying having your teeth kicked in won't be that bad if you get anesthesia first. It's still a life changing - and not for the better - experience.

Ripping someone out of their roots and throwing them into what will be a foreign environment to them and one that will be vastly different from the one they have known all their lives is not justice.

That I am referring to otherwise law-abiding people, not illegal aliens who commit felonies or other serious crimes (you know, stuff besides speeding tickets and stealing a pack of gum at a 7-11).

Being kicked out of the country, no matter their history, is a fitting punishment for criminals.

Then you should be arguing to extend birthright citizenship until the age of 10, 12, 15... pick a number. As far as I know, Huckabee has never proposed that. In fact, he has said he opposes amnesty. I guess he is cruel and heartless too, since he doesn't want to give this 18 year old that came over as a 7 year old legal status. He just wants to give him government handouts until he gets deported. How compassionate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

.

There is no lie here.

When you have to say that line too often, you have a fatally flawed candidate. I can't get too taxed about Huckabee because he has absolutely no chance at the nomination outside of Iowa. Yet like Ron Paul, his tactics bring a lot of discredit on the party so he is boosted in the MSM. I'm neither a Mormon nor a Romney supporter, but the attacks on the man's faith have been out of bounds. As a matter of fact, those assaults have made me much more sympathetic to Romney than I was just a week ago.

In fact, it has been the total opposite. I couldn't care less what his religion is.

The following is from an anti-Huckabee page that quotes Huckabee saying they needed to be High school graduates of AR.

Sorry, I don't know how to make it a ling thing.

http://theamericanwriter2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/mike-huckabee-bashes-i...

Huckabee said illegal immigrants "can't vote, can't collect Social Security benefits. They don't get a tax refund, but they pay sales tax, gasoline tax, and property tax when they pay their rent. We don't let them vote. They don't get welfare benefits. And they don't get unemployment benefits.

"We're talking about giving children not free college, only the opportunity to be treated with the same opportunity as any Arkansas high school graduate would have," Huckabee said.

Your arguement that if someone has to say that their favored candidate is not a liar that shows a fatal flaw is just silly.

And for some of you to contend that we are "putting it back on Romney" to deflect it from Huckabee is not quite true. I defended Romney when Rudy took the cheap shot about "a sanctuary mansion".

If I were wanting to do that I would come up with a few obvious lies Romney has stated about Huckabee. Like his saying Huckabee is a life long politition.

Jim Tomasik

Need to be an exceptional student, an A+ student, or drug and alcohol free to qualify for in-state tuition. He is deliberately misrepresenting the legislation, but I guess that's OK because it is Huckabee. The ends always justify the means with that guy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You are arguing two different things. Huckabee talked about scholarships, you are talking about in-state tuition. Stop comparing apples to oranges in your quest to try to make a liar out of Huckabee.

Except for the fact that the bill he was championing provided for instate tuition for illegals. Oops.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

when he talked about scholarships in answer to a question about instate tuition, Huckabee was comparing apples with oranges.

Huckster's critics don't have to make him out to be deceitful. He does it so well all by himself.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of