[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

No, no... do keep right on going, by all means. By your own bizarrely illogical standards, then: a President Hillary Clinton, say, could raise taxes by another 70, maybe even 80%... but, just so long as she didn't actually use the words "tax increase," it wouldn't really BE a tax increase, after all. What marvelous schoolyard sophistry!

You know... typically, it's only in the most backwards of the remotest, most isolated jungle tribes that words are magically considered to be genuinely one and the same with concrete reality. Sometimes, "ridicule" is not only richly merited: it's both inevitable and mandatory.

*snort*

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No, a tax increase is easy to see - does the tax rate go up or down?

Apparently, you cannot see that with amnesty. What the immigration plan called for was NOT amnesty, it did not meet either the textbook definition of amnesty (which a tax increase would be easy to tell), nor does it even come close to an actual amnesty as granted by the government (either for tax purposes, registration, or illegal immigrants).

Apparently moving the goalposts is the “McPain SUCKS!” wing of the conservative movement’s modus operandi.

So once again - define amnesty. Once you get that down, then we can talk. I’ve told you what I believe it is - as defined by Merriam Webster.

Short of that, you’re just bloviating for the sake of hearing your own echoes.