Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-15-2012, 12:29 PM Reply   
I thought for sure there would have been some discussion on this here today.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/w...165949610.html

I'm a bit split personally seeing both sides clearly. One is we shouldn't reward illegals with being able to stay here under any circumstances. It's not fair to those who are here and who have immigrated here legally. We also can't afford to take in everyone who wants to come to the U.S. It's just a tough sad fact.

On the other hand, when you look at some of these kids, they did nothing wrong at all. Many were brought here illegally by their parents at very young ages and have lived here all their lives. I've read and watched stories about some of these kids having to move back to the country they were born in, sometimes not even knowing the language. If they've done well here and not broken any laws, why not give this small group of people a break? Looking at these individuals and their unique circumstances, I'd have to agree with doing this and with Obama's policy. The main problem I have is with creating any type of incentive for parents to sneak their kids in here, trying to make them legal. One restriction I'd like to see is that these kid's parents can never get green cards or citizenship here. At the most, they could get tourist visas.

Keep in mind how lucky people born in the U.S. are to be born here. Also, don't just puke the word amnesty out, blasting the whole policy without really thinking about it and this particular policy affecting this particular group of people.

That's my 2 cents.
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       06-15-2012, 12:35 PM Reply   
didnt Reagan do basically the same thing while governor of Cali? how did that work out for California? prison populations have quadrupled with latino and illegal prisoners, and basically bankrupting california. meanwhile, the illegal population has grown like 300% or something since then. yeah, this is going to work out great in the long run.
Old    Dan (hco)      Join Date: Jun 2006       06-15-2012, 12:53 PM Reply   
As far as I am concerned, most of the illegals work harder than our fellow Americans, and until they get arrested for drunk driving or involve themselves with gangs and other criminal activities then we shouldn't deport them.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-15-2012, 1:22 PM Reply   
Just one more thing in the ever growing list of things Obama has done to bring this country lower then its ever been b4.
How long till some one comes in and blames the guy that used to run thing's.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-15-2012, 1:25 PM Reply   
I blame Obama.... For doing a good thing. Kudos for this.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-15-2012, 1:43 PM Reply   
I didn't realize Reagan made a law allowing kids who were brought in here illegally but raised here and having not broke any law to stay rather than be deported - and then those kids tripling the illegal population growth. Link?
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-15-2012, 1:57 PM Reply   
Pander-er In Chief.

Pander to Unions...check
Pander to Blacks...check
Pander to gays...check
Pander to Hispanics...check
Pander to Hollywood...check

There's another thread on here about Obama using tax dollars to campaign. I have less of a concern for that, than I do for him to usurp the will of the people (e.g. Congress) to pander/campaign.

Last edited by snyder; 06-15-2012 at 2:02 PM.
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       06-15-2012, 2:44 PM Reply   
Brett- i was referring to the immigration and control act that he signed while he was potus. I got mixed up on when it happened. He basically granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. We now have more than 11 million illegals here in the US. Over 30% of inmates are illegals. That costs upwards of $2 billion annually. And because of how close mexico is to california, arizona, we bear the brunt of the problem. It has been on ongoing for years, but it has gotten much worse since 1986 when reagan gave amnesty to those 3 million illegals.
I will be the first person to defend a child who is here because his parents broke the law, but if they want to stay with their parents, they need to go with them. Having criminal parents is no fault of theirs, but telling a kid he doesnt have to be deported with his parents, just means that some hippy dippy group is going to come to the rescue and make sure these families are not seperated. Same as the anchor baby nonsense. I agree that some of these illegals are here for work, and to support their families and make a better life for them. However, when these families have both parents working multiple jobs, and their kids find sanctuary with the gangs, is that worth it? When these families are living 10-12 people in a 2 bedroom apt that was designed for 4 people max, is it worth it?
Illegal is illegal. I dont see this ending wellm and all it is, is obama pandering to the latino vote.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-15-2012, 3:31 PM Reply   
..... is obama pandering to the latino vote.

That's possible. But can't this guy make any decision or do anything just possibly because he thinks it's the right thing to do? In the situation with these kids, I think it is. It's at least possible Obama does as well.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-15-2012, 3:58 PM Reply   
"Pander-er In Chief.

Pander to Unions...check
Pander to Blacks...check
Pander to gays...check
Pander to Hispanics...check
Pander to Hollywood...check"

Uh, how is Romney going to be any different???

Pander-er In Chief.

Pander to NRA...check
Pander to Corporations...check
Pander to Grover Norquist...check
Pander to Teabaggers...check
Pander to private military contractors...check

Pardon me if I fail to see a valid argument in your reasoning.
Old    Raf (Raf1985)      Join Date: Mar 2012       06-15-2012, 6:41 PM Reply   
Politics are too complicated for me but I do hate illegals.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-15-2012, 8:50 PM Reply   
Interesting.... How is upholding your constitutional rights pandering to the NRA? Shall I remind you who are the richest people in the world are (democrats) and where is your 401k funded in (corporations). Don't know the Grover reference. There is that offensive Teabagger reference again. Military contractors? You mean the exact same contractors that the democrats have used since 2006 to support their wars. Oh that's right I forgot those democrats did not get elected because they pander for votes to get us out of the wars. What is it, 6 years later we are still there. Hey how about that obama pandering about shutting down Gitmo. That's right no action their either.

How would Romney be different. I would suspect he would actually hold up the law regarding illegals. 2003 figures in California alone had illegals directly costing over $15 billion a year. The population has sky rocketed since then. We can not afford it. The Feds do not pay for it, the states do and the federal government is responsible for protecting the states from foreign invasion. On economics, Romney does have a degree in business from Harvard as well as a Harvard Law degree. Romney does know how to work on both sides of the isle considering he got things done as a conservative in a liberal state. I think Romney understands cause and effect and the natural movement of money. That movement is like water and electricity, it will always move to the path of least resistance. You can still play the stupid a$$ anti corporate bs, but every one of you has money in corporations, corporations are what drives smaller businesses and they bring money into various regions. You can keep pretending like if it were not for corporations, obama would succeed. He will never succeed because he is trying to build a economy off of the government and not off of attracting money from foreign investment and sales. Government can only tax and print money. Print money and it becomes worthless. Tax your working class and you will collapse. We need someone who understands business and how to attract money. To sit back and think democrats are not into corporations is fools game. Like I said, democrats are the richest people in the world and they are they way why? Because of their corporate involvement.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-16-2012, 6:51 AM Reply   
Romney can take his harvard law degree and stick it up his morman butt! He does not know what he is doing, they won't even let him talk to regular people because he makes stupid comments. Delta,please explain your analogy with money and water/electricity, I am stupid and I don't get it, money deals directly with people working and buying things and the laws of water/electricity has nothing to do with people? Only five more months of this crap.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-16-2012, 7:37 AM Reply   
Delta, there is a difference between supporting your second amendment rights and attending a NRA rally. And in case you weren't paying attention, Romney supported gun control legislature as governor of Massachusetts. And let me tell you what the NRA was trying to push through the TN government. They wanted laws that mandated employees should be able to bring arms onto the property of the workplace. This was heavily objected to big companies here in TN (I.e. Volkswagen and Amazon) as well as the republican governor, Bill Haslem. Luckily, the bill was easily defeated, but how long do you think the NRA will try to pass it again here or somewhere else? I fully support the right to bear arms, but I feel businesses should be able to not allow guns on THEIR property. The NRA is not about protecting 2nd Ammendment rights, but maximizing gun and ammo sales. They are probably the biggest lobbyist today. So don't act as though they are just trying to protect rights. I'm not sure how 2006 signified the sole ownership of the Iraq and Afghan wars, but whatever gets you to sleep at night. Grover Norquist is the lobbyist that insists GOP candidates sign his stupid Pledge to America and thinks the president is just someone there to sign their name to bills and wave to the crowd.

And for you to say Romney was a "conservative in a liberal state" demonstrates how clueless you are. Again, Romney supported gun control as governor. Romney was pro-choice as governor. Romney supported same sex marriages. And just in case you had your head stuck somewhere, he instituted Romneycare. How does that make him a "conservative in a liberal state"? All of the "conservatives" in the GOP presidential race bowed out a long time ago. Romney was by far the most liberal of all of the candidates.

Not to mention, Romney had illegals doing landscaping at the governor's mansion.

Romney knows he needs the Latino vote hence changing the subject when asked about Obama's actions.

Last edited by wake77; 06-16-2012 at 7:47 AM.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-16-2012, 7:43 AM Reply   
This is Conservapedia's (the conservative Wikipedia) take on Romney. Try to find where they identify Romney as a conservative.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Mitt_Romney

I didn't know conservative and RINO were synonymous?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-17-2012, 1:11 AM Reply   
Jo, Your answer is why you are liberal. Let me help you. They are basic laws of the universe. Water, electricity and money all move to the path of least resistance. It does not mater what what race, religion, political make up you are. It is a simple truth. None of them have souls. None of them stop moving and they all will destroy you if you get in the way. Somehow liberals think they are above the fray when it comes to them . They think that their side has nothing to do with money and that corporations are the only people who yield this money thing. They think if we only gave money to everyone that everyone would be equal or that if we just gave money to everyone the world we be in harmony. None of this is further from the truth. Money, goats, chickens.... you name it, they are signs of wealth over the ages. What ever the item of value, it will always move to the place of cheapest labor and best value. Your area cost more to do business in and another area makes the same item, you will go out of business. Remember, Obama is about spreading the wealth. He even said so on tape. Most liberals like Obama believe we are children of the world. He himself grew up out of the United States. So, when a liberal says they are spreading the wealth, where do you think they are talking about spreading it? They already think Americans are rich and have it easy in the world. They are talking about spreading our wealth to the world, not to poor Americans. Money in the name of business and corporations is easy to handle and predict. You make it cheaper to wet up shop in your area, then they will move there. If there is not value where you are, then the money will move else where. Can you tell me how many car manufacturers are in California now?

I don't know what you are talking about in regards to water and electricity laws don't have anything to do with people. Do you really not believe that? Economics and the flow of any thing on earth effects people.

Jeremy, most "companies" will not allow private citizens to have guns in their vehicles at work. What they are saying is your private property is not your private property while at work. I think that is not right. The NRA has a point. Regardless of the suit, some people in those states obviously had a issue or it would never had become a issue. I am sure the argument is more complex than your opinion.

I do believe that 2006 indeed gave ownership of the wars to democrats. Considering the demorats lied their a$$ off regarding their support for the war in the first place. Then they lied their a$$ off regarding their promise to get us out of war if they were elected to the house and senate. They got elected to both the house and senate majority and controlled ALL MONEY regarding the war efforts. There were even hundred thousand people marches in New York against the wars. demorats got elected to stop the wars and they did nothing. When you control the money, you control every event in the country as ordered by the government. Then obama got elected, he was supposed to stop Gitmo and so on. Guess what we are still at war and Gitmo is still there. Why have you and other liberals not posted on this? It was all so important to be talked about when Bush was in office, but not a single word against since demorats got control of everything. I was looking forward to some truth and action by the left side of isle on this issues. I mean they were so passionate about those issues. I certainly believed, as misguided as they were, they were at least leading with what they believed to be the truth right? Obviously not because there are no anti war posts, no anti Gitmo posts. No protests? Nothing? I thought you guys believed in these things? That's right, liberals did not believe in these things from any time in the process. Their voting record showed otherwise. Their quotes regarding these issues proved otherwise. Their lack of protest regardless of leadership shows otherwise. Only conclusion I can come up with is LIARS.

As far as Romney in a liberal state. Sounds like he had done everything that you support but you disagree with who he is. Sounds like he is your candidate. Why do you dislike him? Difference is, you can support the states rights to support different things and understand the money issues. I don't agree with everything he did but I disagree with almost everything obama stands for. I am for America first. Anti UN. I am against state sponsored foreign invasion. I understand that illegals injected into a closed financial system will kill that system. It is pure money and obama obviously places idealism over pure simple economics and that is why he needs to go.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-17-2012, 6:27 AM Reply   
Delta, I didn't say "water and electricity laws don't have anything to do with people"
what I said was "the laws of water/electricity has nothing to do with people"
Big difference, when you write down a formula, I X R =E, that law of electricity does not involve people in the equation, people can use the law to their advantage, but they are not part of the equation, water is similar(laws of physics) again people are not part of the equations. Whenever you talk about money, people are part of the equation, they are making it or spending it, you cannot take people out of the equation.
Obama doesn't have to give money to other countries the American people give enough money to other countries by buying their products! When Obama talked about spreading the wealth, he was talking about taxing the rich in America and using the money to buy American jobs which would be beneficial to America, I believe he is running on this platform again this year.
I am not liberal or republican, in 2000 I could not vote for Kerry and this year I cannot vote for Romney.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-17-2012, 11:31 AM Reply   
Taxing the rich does not buy jobs for Americans. What product are we producing with said jobs that the government is going to produce? Without a product to sell, you are not attracting new money into your area. That money is simply being used at the very best to make another parasitic job that can only be held up by draining money from people who can actually make and sell products. What people do not realize is the so called taxing the rich really comes from taxing the middle class. The "rich" people you so dearly love to have class warfare against simple move money into stocks and bonds and create wealth. That wealth is invested into larger companies. Those larger companies have found the path of least resistance is to move the jobs out of the country because A) the corporations have a responsibility to protect the investment of it's share holders which happen to be all people who have any retirement accounts including the middle class B) It is just like water and electricity. Always moving to the path of least resistance. Less resistance = more flow = more money (or current in electricity). You see it is a simple metaphor Jo. You proved it to yourself Jo. You even stated "Obama doesn't have to give money to other countries the American people give enough money to other countries by buying their products!". BINGO BUDDY. You are almost there. BRAVO. And why would those products be made overseas? Why wouldn't that be a perfect mechanism to "spread the wealth" to the rest of the world? The way you keep those products to keep being made overseas is to create more and more regulation at home. Make companies spend more for healthcare. Tax the rich knowing they will just move their money offshore. Keep overall expense of doing business in the US expensive thus the money will move to the path of least resistance (which is out of the country aka spread the wealth). You really need to start to think logically about the policies that are proposed. Thinks like Kyoto Treaty, Support for the UN, Not stopping illegals aliens. What are all those policies? They are designed to spread the wealth. Unfortunately, democrats are too dumb to realize that when they want to spread the wealth, it is not to other Americans.
Old    Joe (ilikebeaverandboats)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-17-2012, 12:25 PM Reply   
"They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one--on paper," ........ EXCEPT in Allegiance, Loyalty, and Bank Accounts. The fact is, they do not want to be "American" they are extremely proud to be Mexican.

Im sorry, but unless you have lived in a border town, you DO NOT understand the issues behind illegal immigration. Go spend some time down in El Paso, TX and i guarantee it'll change anybody's view of the issue.

I go to a pretty liberal school, at least in my conservative opinion, and many of my friends think that we should open the boarders because its "right" and because Mexico is a bad place, yada yada yada. My counter argument to that, is this, What happens if we open the boarders? Think about the flood of people that would come in. Where would they live? How would it affect our economy? Just because they come over the border, does that mean they magically will have money to stimulate our economy? To buy houses? We have immigration laws for a reason, we cannot just let everyone in.

The next time the lake reaches capacity, I'm gonna go ape **** and say its discrimination because i am white and how its not fair that I didn't get to have a nice day on the water with my friends because I got to sleep in and didn't get there at the crack of dawn like everyone else did. People need to follow the rules, shut up, and take care of themselves.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-17-2012, 1:29 PM Reply   
You guys saying Romney is for corporations need to educate yourself--It's the Dems. who bailed out the banks, it's the Dems. who passed the Dodd-Franks Act, (both kill the little guy) it's the Dems. who want to pass the silly CDL requirements for tractors and anyone pulling a trailer over 16 feet . Think a minute, if this CDL license law passes, who will it hurt? Corporations? No, the independent who is out trying to make a living. It may even be that if you own a wakeboard boat you may be required to get a CDL. Romney is not perfect, no one is, but don’t fool yourself, the Democrats—this administration anyway--are not the working man’s party anymore. http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011...ia-regulation/
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       06-17-2012, 2:52 PM Reply   
You guys are all missing the point... Obama is making an unprecedented power grab violating the US Constitution on several points. Immigrants are leaving their home countries and coming to the US for a reason, that reason is the opportunity and freedom that exists here in the US. By going around congress and applying the law differently for one group of our society than others we turning this country into the very place these immigrants left... One ruled by a political despot. We are NOT a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic where all people are treated equally under the law and no man is king.

Now before you feeble minded idiots fire back at me about what Bush did, or anyone else, listen up! They all broke the law, follow the Constitution and 99.9% of our problems go away.

Read The Law by Bastiat
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-17-2012, 3:09 PM Reply   
"That money is simply being used at the very best to make another parasitic job that can only be held up by draining money from people who can actually make and sell products." Oh, I see, like our military that costs billions and billions of dollars, dig a hole and fill it up, that's their job, they do not produce a single product, I'm starting to get it! Nothing dumber than a poor republican!
Delta, you either don't know anything about water/electricity or you don't know anything about money, because the least resistance to money is in my pockets, I would be glad to take any ones money with no resistance whatsoever. If you double the resistance in an electrical circuit you get half the flow of current-can you give me a formula for money? NO, because People are involved and I doubt any colleges, including harvard are telling their students that money is like electricity, so did you just make this crap up or who did you get it from? and I hope it wasn't Ludwig von Mises. You can use the flow of water to represent the flow of current to give you a better understanding of electricity, but to say money is just like electricity is naive. I would think an analogy connecting money and time would be much more appropriate, because for a lot of people in the world money is time.
Joey, don't you get it, its the illegals, that's why America is in debt! If we didn't have illegals, we wouldn't have any problems, right???
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-17-2012, 5:38 PM Reply   
Jo, obviously you don't understand analogies do you? The path of least resistance to making more money is not into your pocket. Money into your pocket is a negative cash flow for a business. You make money by manufacturing goods or providing a service that people will exchange money for. That good or service has cost less to manufacture and sell then the cost of manufacturing it. The path of least resistance to making MORE money is out of the country at this point. Less regulation, cheaper labor and a country like America with just enough money to buy those products. Thus, we have negative cash flow. The money will always move to the place where it is easiest to make it. Just like water tries to flow to it's lowest point and electricity will always move to ground, money will always move to the place that will maximize profit. Trust me, I know a little bit about electricity and water flow. I have done a couple of calculations in my day.
On your military example, the military in a pure money argument is a complete waste of money. There is no need for the military on a first order bases. What you are buying with the military is protection for your assets as a nation. In a house hold analogy, they are like your taxes going to police and fire services. In a perfect society, you would never need them. By the very definition, they are a negative cash flow for all family incomes. That is money gone that you can never recover. Majority of the people will never need those services (hopefully). We find value in the fact knowing we have them to help save us if the need arises but on the money side, it is a drain. A drain, but we find value. The place where military spending has helped, it is the development of technologies that we have privatized and then used it to produce private jobs that was able to be sold around the world to bring a positive cash flow into the country. That is pretty much what the late 80's and 90's were about.

I can tell you for a fact that Harvard is not telling their students that the path of least resistance to making money is not directly into your pocket.

You line about "Nothing dumber than a poor republican!" is the classic liberal line. Let me guess, you want to back that line up with "you are stupid for voting against your own best interests"? That is what is difference between me and the liberal population. I can understand what is best for us all and not just think about myself. It is not about rich and poor between democrats and republicans. Kind of funny, all the richest areas in the country are clearly the big cities and guess what, they are overwhelmingly democrat. They are also the most violent and socially bankrupt places in the country. If you look at the voting map, all the poor fly over country tends to vote republican. Why because they understand that the rich democrats are trying to move the wealth out of the country.

Tell me this genius, why are companies moving manufacturing out of the country at a record pace? It certainly must be that it is so expensive to manufacture goods in mexico and guatamala. Please explain it to me.
Old    Joe (ilikebeaverandboats)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-17-2012, 6:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshmoe View Post
"
Joey, don't you get it, its the illegals, that's why America is in debt! If we didn't have illegals, we wouldn't have any problems, right???
Yup, take my opinion as far over board as you can!

I bet you think we can solve the energy crisis with solar power and bunnies don't ya?
Old    9Drozd            06-17-2012, 10:38 PM Reply   
The only reason the D-Bag of a president is doing this is for votes. Take it to either extremes, but it all boils back down for this falls vote.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       06-17-2012, 10:48 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9Drozd View Post
The only reason the D-Bag of a president is doing this is for votes. Take it to either extremes, but it all boils back down for this falls vote.
Partially correct IMO. Don't forget power... He is nothing but a man-child, nothing more.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-18-2012, 4:48 AM Reply   
"Those larger companies have found the path of least resistance is to move the jobs out of the country because A) the corporations have a responsibility to protect the investment of it's share holders which happen to be all people who have any retirement accounts including the middle class B) It is just like water and electricity. Always moving to the path of least resistance. Less resistance = more flow = more money (or current in electricity). "

Delta, the easing of import tariffs is what moved many jobs out of the country. These "patriotic" corporations that were "driven" out of the country were enticed by cheaper overseas labor, not having to pay benefits, and less accountability. As long as we allow companies to cheaply import products made in third world countries, jobs will continue to flee the country. I have not heard Romney make one speech concerning the trade deficit during his campaign. You are looking at the problem with blinders.

As far as Gitmo is concerned; I was more dissatisfied with Obama not ending the Iraq and Afghan wars sooner. But don't think for one second that I have forgotten about unfufilled campaign promises. Gitmo still being open should make you happy.

"Tell me this genius, why are companies moving manufacturing out of the country at a record pace? It certainly must be that it is so expensive to manufacture goods in mexico and guatamala. Please explain it to me."

Let's just convert to a Third World Country: wages, benefits, pollution, etc. The labor will return!!!
Old    Sippi (sippi)      Join Date: Dec 2007       06-18-2012, 5:24 AM Reply   
The only thing i'm going to say about this is that if they are here they need to do it right. I have two Philipinos that work with me. They are here LEGALLY, which means they have their visa's AND PAY TAXES. they are furious by all the illegals here because they don't pay taxes. 1 of my 2 guys here is actually up for citizenship this year and yes he's going to do it. he loves it here and he and wife and two kids have done it all right. the other still has another two years before he is eligiable. If you are going to be here you need to work and pay taxes like the rest. I realize this has nothing to do with the children aspect of what obamas saying, but this is the main concern for me and i see two hard working individuals everyday who are doing it right and it saddens me that their are so many out there who don't. BUT that doesn't just go for them. It also goes for the actual americans who live off the govt with not even thinking about getting a job because they are doing just fine from the government. and if they aren't then oh well lets just have another baby so the govt will give us more money. I know he'd lose some votes (ok probably the majority of his votes), but i wish they would make it a federal law that if you are receiving government assistance (welfare, food stamps, medicaid....whatever it may be), then you are subject to drug testing. I know that florida, TN, and someone else just did this, but come on thats a no brainer and it should be FEDERAL! everyone should have to do this! ok i'm off my soap box. have a good one
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-18-2012, 11:25 AM Reply   
Jeremy. You are correct. We have have to level the playing field but we also have to stop trying to regulate everything in the name of a false religion like the global warming cult. Everyone and their brother knows that stuff is only a tax system to move wealth to the third world. Also with government screaming for more taxes and more benefits all the time, will keep the money away. Uncertainty is death for a business too.

You have to realize that only a fool would believe a corporation or anyone who is trying to make money is "Patriotic". Money has not soul and no loyalty. Corporations have people from all around the world on their boards for starters. The difference seems to be is all the poor republicans in the fly over country already understand this. Democrats on the other had think that sharing the wealth means taking from the rich locally and giving to the poor locally. That is not how it works. What it used to mean is leveling the playing field so a few larger businesses could not dominate smaller business unfairly. I am for that on the business front. Problem is that you don't have this. You obviously do not listen to the platform of the Democrat party. They believe they are children of the world. They are for the UN. They believe in sharing the wealth. ADD IT UP!!!!! They don't mean spreading it to America, they mean spreading it around the world. Why do you think they were so hot to trot to sign Kyoto treaty? That is a global warming share the wealth scheme. That would have done zero to curb "global warming". Why do you think democrats are against domestic drilling for resources? The US having our own resources means more wealth moving to the US and not away from it. Why do you think the democrats wanted Kyoto but countries like China or India did not have to sign? Wake up. The financial side of life is pretty simple. If you want to make money, you look at the costs and look at the laws and adjust accordingly. Nothing personal, just business. Hate to tell you, if wealth keeps leaving the country, we will be a 3rd world country weather we want to or not at some point. BTW, the third biggest GNP for Mexico is money sent back to Mexico from Mexican nationals living in the US.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-18-2012, 11:36 AM Reply   
Also, guess who gave most favored trading status to the Chinese back in the day? Big Bill did. Not saying Republicans are perfect. That damn Bush senior got NAFTA going. Can't remember who signed if it was Bill or George but they were all involved. Many of those import tariffs are reduced because of the trade agreements we signed in the name of share the wealth. Now we get taken to court for it if we did. It is the slow drive to internationalism and this is going to be the norm, not the exception.

Jeremy, Romney may not have addressed the trade deficit at this point but I know for a fact all Obama policies have been to "share the wealth" and that has been the democrat policy for some time. I will never agree with that policy. I see it put to use right here in California and I do not know of any large manufacturing jobs anymore here. Only thing that kind of saves it is California has a large amount of high tech workers that can bring online new product lines a little quicker than over seas plants. Even with that, most product lines are quickly moved out of state once processes are mature.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 06-18-2012 at 11:40 AM. Reason: because I wanted to
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-18-2012, 1:21 PM Reply   
^Look at corporate profits compared to GDP with Obama as president. Identify where the "wealth is being shared".

Look at domestic drilling with Obama as president. Look at the barrel price of oil today and explain to me why the price at the pump doesn't correlate to the barrel price. Increased domestic drilling amounts to pennies saved at the pump and unless the US seizes control of all domestic drilling (i.e. Venezula), we (people at the pump) will be at the mercy of ExxonMobil and BP.

As soon as politics became a career, both parties became disinterested in serving all but a few constituents. I realize this, but you seem to believe that only the democrats are guilty.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-18-2012, 2:29 PM Reply   
Actually domestic drilling permits are down. The companies are making more with what they got and I am sure the tar sand stuff is what is tipping the scales.

What I am referring too about drilling is the constant policy of not allowing us to get resources around the country (like Alaska) and oil is not the only resource we are not able to get. Funny how Canada and Mexico have all this oil and resources but somehow it skipped America.

On Corporate profits, you also have to realize that Stocks and Bonds are not for just rich people anymore. Almost everyone has a 401k. That goes straight into corporate profits. Unfortunately we have to hope they do the right thing and protect our investments so we have a chance to one day retire.

Look I don't have any illusions of career politicians serving the people they way they should. That is why you see me firmly planted on the side that wants less government and not more. My feeling of politicians also places me on the side of a people who do not support the UN or "children of the world" approaches. You have to strengthen your own house before you can help a neighbor. Not saying the republicans make small government all the time, but, at least their overall public campaigning and general voting record tends to support that. That is the best we can get right now. All politicians need to understand not supporting the people at home first is a very quick career ender. Unfortunately the American population is infected with world first people. You have to realize our overall standard of living is going to fall far if we are going to be the worlds middle class that they can tax.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       06-18-2012, 7:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Look at corporate profits compared to GDP with Obama as president. Identify where the "wealth is being shared".

Look at domestic drilling with Obama as president. Look at the barrel price of oil today and explain to me why the price at the pump doesn't correlate to the barrel price. Increased domestic drilling amounts to pennies saved at the pump and unless the US seizes control of all domestic drilling (i.e. Venezula), we (people at the pump) will be at the mercy of ExxonMobil and BP.

As soon as politics became a career, both parties became disinterested in serving all but a few constituents. I realize this, but you seem to believe that only the democrats are guilty.
We can agree on this... This is why the 17th Amendment has to be repealed. Senators use to be accountable to their state legislatures, after the 17th Amendment they became accountable to no one and became career politicians. This is also why nothing gets done in the senate, the senators have no motivation to do anything.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       06-19-2012, 5:57 AM Reply   
You really think Exxon or BP have anything to do with pump price?
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-19-2012, 8:20 AM Reply   
Oil companies have huge profits because they provide an essential element to the economy and have limited competition. IMHO, they do an excellent job of meeting our energy needs. Pump prices are largely based on demand (both domestic and foreign). However, one of the biggest influences on the price of the pump (besides taxes and EPA regulations) is the dollar. That's why I hope QE3 will be decided against and the dollar allowed to strengthen. With most of the world's economies weakening, demand should be down, which means prices should go down, unless the dollar weakens. Then OPEC will more than likely cut production to get the price up and. . . , so Exxon and BP have limited control of pump prices. It's a complex game and what most don't realize is what an expensive gamble drilling is, not all wells produce. To me, America should be grateful for the job oil companies do instead of making them out to be the rich, evil, bad guy. I don't know why so many of America’s politicians are against people making profits. And, for what it's worth, to me, this move is obviously political. Remember this http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78J05720110920
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-19-2012, 8:21 AM Reply   
"Delta, the easing of import tariffs is what moved many jobs out of the country. These "patriotic" corporations that were "driven" out of the country were enticed by cheaper overseas labor, not having to pay benefits, and less accountability. As long as we allow companies to cheaply import products made in third world countries, jobs will continue to flee the country. I have not heard Romney make one speech concerning the trade deficit during his campaign. You are looking at the problem with blinders."

I actually agree with you here but the only problem is if we start increasing the costs to the corporations who actually pays the price. We do, and suddenly price inflation goes sky high.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-19-2012, 10:39 AM Reply   
This has been a good, informative read. While there has been some high level discussion about the reason behind the reason, the truth is this: It's about votes. You know, getting out the young and mostly misinformed vote. Yes, when I was young and was wearing my rose colored beer goggles I voted for Clinton. Then as I grew up, had a family, and cared about the future for my kids, I voted for Bush. One of the reasons is because I thought poorly of my President that lied under oath; about redefining sex and what it means on the national news. Seems like we have almost 360'd here with all the redefining of the laws and constitution. Obama has decided that he will pull out all the stops to buy votes and for some reason he is succeeding. Today, on the way to work I hear on the radio that the Asian immgration has finally surpassed that of the Latinos. Why is that? How can that be? It is not like that where I live. It is because Latinos now realize they can just march right in and do what they want because amnesty is coming and they want to be part of it. The president has said so. The Asians are actually registered immigrants, the Latinos are (undocumented) illegial aliens.

I will never like Obama nor will I respect him. He was not competent to be president, yet like a pied piper, he lured the voters to support him based on Change and false Hope. He realizes the votes which won his first election are losing interest in his tunes and he needs new voters now. They are the latinos and whoever will believe his line of fresh BS. Finally, like a birther and a t-bag, I look at the mans credentials or the lack of them. Anyone who hides and seals information the way that he has should not be president. I am sure they were full of lies. Lies told whenever needed to benefit him the most.

I went on longer than I had planned and added nothing. My apologies.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-19-2012, 6:29 PM Reply   
^What other president has had a birth certificate so scrutinized? I can't ever remember presidents having to put their birth certificate out for public display. And then he does show it and then "IT'S A FAKE!!! IT'S A FAKE!!!". Anything short of jumping in the Delorean and blasting back to 1961 and seeing for themselves where Obama was born, they will never be satisfied.
Old    Joe (ilikebeaverandboats)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-19-2012, 7:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^What other president has had a birth certificate so scrutinized? I can't ever remember presidents having to put their birth certificate out for public display. And then he does show it and then "IT'S A FAKE!!! IT'S A FAKE!!!". Anything short of jumping in the Delorean and blasting back to 1961 and seeing for themselves where Obama was born, they will never be satisfied.
The Dem party did a good job of making the Repubs look like it was a wild goose chase. But the fact of the matter is this, why would he seal it? How often does an innocent person fight to hide something? Maybe it was the plan to make the repubs look like dummies chasing it, we will never know, and it really doesn't matter one way or the other, but thats how I look at it. Whats sad, is that if the Repub had the reverse, you know the Dem party would go ballistic.

If your report card was all A's when you were a kid, and your 'rents asked to see it, would you hesitate? If it were C's, would you be so willing?
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       06-19-2012, 8:36 PM Reply   
Apparently few people her know history...
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       06-19-2012, 9:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^What other president has had a birth certificate so scrutinized? I can't ever remember presidents having to put their birth certificate out for public display. And then he does show it and then "IT'S A FAKE!!! IT'S A FAKE!!!". Anything short of jumping in the Delorean and blasting back to 1961 and seeing for themselves where Obama was born, they will never be satisfied.
Try cracking a book, or using google... I guess you have an excuse, you said "I can't ever remember". I guess ignorance is an excuse...

Obama is not the first president to have question raised about whether he was born in the US.
· Martin Van Buren - First Language Dutch was Dutch and people thought he might have been born in Holland.
· Chester A . Arthur - born in Northern Vermont, near the Canadian border and parents lived in Canada for many years and his father was born in Ireland.

Presidential Candidates who have had their Citizenship Questioned
· Christopher Schurmann 1896 Election
· Charles Evans Hughes 1916 Election
· George Romney 1968 Election
· Barry Goldwater 1964 Election
· Lowell Weicker 1980 Election
· Roger Calero 2004 and 2008
· John McCain 2000 and 2008

And currently Voeltz v. Obama is working its way through the Florida courts regarding the natural born citizen issue.

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Monday, June 18, 2012 —*A lawyer for President Barack Obama argued today in Florida that a lawsuit claiming his client "is not eligible to appear on the November ballot because he is not a 'natural born citizen,'” should be dismissed on the grounds that the Democratic Party has not yet nominated a candidate.
When you have to answer a lawsuit with that argument, it is only reasonable that further questions and scrutiny arise. Furthermore, Obama's lawyers can't even quote the US Constitutuion correctly, he confused Section One with Clause Five of Section One, and incorrectly referred to "Section Five".

Don't forget Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), United States Supreme Court...
…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

Of course Obama's lawyers continue to compound the need for scrutiny by using US v. Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011...
...in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.”

Meaning that Obama could have been born on the moon and still be eligible for POTUS.

BTW, If the Voeltz v. Obama is actually heard and found to have merit, then Marco Rubio would not be a natural born citizen.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-20-2012, 6:24 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^What other president has had a birth certificate so scrutinized? I can't ever remember presidents having to put their birth certificate out for public display. And then he does show it and then "IT'S A FAKE!!! IT'S A FAKE!!!". Anything short of jumping in the Delorean and blasting back to 1961 and seeing for themselves where Obama was born, they will never be satisfied.
You're right. I seemed to have put this thread in reverse, back to the birther issue, but that was not my intention. The problem with Obama, is he as a whole. So much is not known. So much is sealed. In contrast, so much is out in the open, in regards to his alliances, czars and his illusions of a perfect, equalized society. And even though this is out in the open it seems that most voters are blind. I was not blinded by the GOP. There were problems coming and Obama inherited many of them. However, nothing he has done has helped and his plan is to bury our children in debt. I may be misinformed, but I think I look around and see the effects where I live and then try to understand the world view. It is complicated. However, I am unable to spend above my earning limits, or what I can support in payments, so I feel the US should be the same. Obama and his cronies seem to believe that by burying this country in debt, it will place us in so much reliance of the government that we will have no choice but to become a socialist society. This worries me.

I'm just an average guy with an average job (actually better than average according to statistics) trying to provide a better than average life for my family. I wonder why many more here are not up in arms about the waste and social programs that go on forever. I can only attribute that to where we live. What we see. I live in a basically impoverished area with low paying jobs. I see many who could care less about finding work or getting a job. This goes on from generation to generation. These social program dependant and demographically defined people learn to use the system. Learn to have more kids to "earn" more money and then forget that the kids they birth need love, care, clothing and nurturing. While all this is happening, the persons who enjoy this government assistance, their political representatives continue to press for more equaliity and instill the entitlement mantra into their constituents even more. It is sad.

So, what I have become is a frustrated tax payer who is told that a illegial alien will not only not be deported, due to his parents failure to properly document and become legal immigrants, but will also be able to stay in school, take a job, not pay taxes, and continue to take advantage of our health, learning and safety net infrastructures. These blows to my psyche, of being a law abiding citizen, continue because this illegial will also be able to go to an "out of state" college, cheaper than my son, who is a citizen of the US and the of a son of a citizen who is also a taxpayer.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-20-2012, 7:45 AM Reply   
"Obama is not the first president to have question raised about whether he was born in the US.
· Martin Van Buren - First Language Dutch was Dutch and people thought he might have been born in Holland.
· Chester A . Arthur - born in Northern Vermont, near the Canadian border and parents lived in Canada for many years and his father was born in Ireland.

Presidential Candidates who have had their Citizenship Questioned
· Christopher Schurmann 1896 Election
· Charles Evans Hughes 1916 Election
· George Romney 1968 Election
· Barry Goldwater 1964 Election
· Lowell Weicker 1980 Election
· Roger Calero 2004 and 2008
· John McCain 2000 and 2008"

Sam or Tucker, read my original post.

"I can't ever remember presidents having to put their birth certificate out for public display."

Please note the word "candidate" was nowhere to be found in that sentence. And I applaud you. You found two presidents that had their birth places scrutinized. I should have took the time to do a bit of Google research. But notice how I never implied that a president NEVER had their birth records examined. That is just your attempt to show people how smart you are. I never claimed to be an expert in US political history, but at least I have enough common sense to not buy into the whole birther issue. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and the majority of GOP lawmakers (with the exception of Donald Trump and the Teabaggers) must not buy it either.

"he confused Section One with Clause Five of Section One, and incorrectly referred to "Section Five". "

Maybe he misspoke? Or is that the smoking gun of your birther issue?

Sam, you can see a copy of the birth certificate for yourself online. What else is needed for you to be statisfied and to lay the issue to rest?

"However, nothing he has done has helped and his plan is to bury our children in debt"

Isn't Congress in charge of spending? How can you place the blame solely on Obama's shoulders?
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-20-2012, 7:57 AM Reply   
here are my thoughts on this. somewhat schizophrenic.

It's a reality that as we outsource certain job sectors, we're importing others. One of the reasons we've enjoyed such a comfortable lifestyle in the US is because we've been importing cheap labor for decades. having this underground labor force has one of two effects (or a cross between the two). either it saves money for the business owner improving margins, or it provides cheaper goods/services to consumers. Profits make their way into the economy one way or another (unless the business owner keeps his cash under his mattress), and cheaper goods make your dollar go further of course. Businesses that rely on this cheap labor really, really don't want anything changed wrt stronger immigration controls.

I'd be willing to bet, if someone could do a correlation study between the volume of anti-illegal immigration talk and the growth/shrink of GDP, i'd bet you'd find a very tight negative correlation. In other words, when the economy's strong, we don't really give a rats-azz about illegals, it's only when the econ is in the crapper that we care about it.

Where a lot of people get emotionally charged on this issue is when they see the potential for an upsetting of the power balance. When you see proud Hispanics with no desire (and frankly, no reason) to assimilate to an "American" culture, it's perceived as a threat to your way of life. Or when you hear news stories that Hispanics are increasing as a % of the population faster than other races/ethnicities, that's perceived as a threat.

The real issue to me is that the allowed free flow of people in and out of our southern border, sets us up wide open for other risks. From allowing for the easy flow of drugs and guns both ways; to known criminals/thugs/etc who can "disappear" across the border (both ways); to worst case, (and completely feasible) AQ hooking up w/cartels in smuggling bio, nuke, etc weapons into the US quite easily.

By removing the disincentive to being here illegally (the risk of deportation), you're just saying, "y'all come on in". It is a drag on our public schools, a drag on our health care system, and a drag on our legal system.

Also, this turns into an expansion of the "anchor baby" premises.(whereby a twist of the interpretation of the constitution if you were born on US soil, you're by default a citizen, and therefore your parents are anchored here, because we can't deport the parents and allow their dependents to stay) by labeling these 18-30 year-olds as "children" (by the way, since when is a 30 y/o a child...) you're saying, "hey, even though you weren't BORN here, we kinda consider you amnest-ized, therefore we won't deport your parents either. ergo back-door amnesty. The next step is, "well now that you're amnest-ized.... why don't we just grant you citizenship... then you can VOTE for us too!!!" I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say if the majority of Hispanics voted conservative/republican, A.) republicans would be doing the exact same thing and B.) democrats would be fighting it just as vehemently.

But in the end it's a law of supply and demand issue. But BHO doesn't give a crap about Hispanics, he just want's to throw them a bone in hopes of shoring up their support...
The solution (IMO) is simply grant work permits (which allows for better documentation of who's who and where they're from) If you want to come here to "work", then by all means come on, just apply for this non-citizenship granting permit. and control the border... lock it down.

Last edited by snyder; 06-20-2012 at 8:03 AM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-20-2012, 8:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
But BHO doesn't give a crap about Hispanics, he just want's to throw them a bone in hopes of shoring up their support...
Perhaps we should be clearer about this. No politician gives a crap about anything unless it lines their pockets, gives them more public approval, get's them reelected, or all of the above.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-20-2012, 12:40 PM Reply   
John, While I agree with you completely on that point, I'll add A.) that's not a new problem by any stretch of the imagination, and B.) it's becoming a tired excuse by some as a defense of BHO's actions to simply say, "everyone does it" or "that's no different than any other politician" or "Romney would do the same thing" or the most tired excuse... "Bush did it too". Wrong is wrong.

The tea party has become a favorite punching bag by the media and many TRY to dismiss it as irrelevant, but the idea that wrong is wrong is part of what kick started that movement. It's a common argument, from you especially, that republicans historically have been no better than democrats. And that is true. And that is also changing. There's a huge struggle taking place w/in the Republican party right now between the legacy "establishment" side of the party, and the new "wrong is wrong", principled, country first-politics second, smaller/less intrusive government side of the party. It's most obvious in how fractured the primaries were early on. Romney is/was seen as the establishment candidate. and nearly everyone else was the anti-establishment/tea party candidate. at the end of the day, the establishment side of the party won out at the top of the ticket, but there will be a continued sea change at lower levels. from the Senate to the House, to State and Local... the Republican party is cleaning house slowly but surely.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       06-20-2012, 7:41 PM Reply   
This is only for the good eligible illegals in the same way welfare is only for those who need a temporary income source between jobs. it's gonna help a few that deserve it, and abused by the other 99%.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-21-2012, 7:41 AM Reply   
"The only reason the D-Bag of a president is doing this is for votes. Take it to either extremes, but it all boils back down for this falls vote."

What do you call Romney for this move???

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/...job-gains.html
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       06-21-2012, 8:16 AM Reply   
LOL!! So your not denying it, just saying its ok to manipluate citizenship laws because another politician is downplaying economic stats. Gotcha
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-21-2012, 8:24 AM Reply   
I call it the same political B.S. as all politicians. But, the national impact of his tactic pales in comparison to that of Obama's.

In the coming weeks, it won't matter for Obama. He is going to have a rough June/July
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-21-2012, 8:33 AM Reply   
"Scott, a Republican, was asked to say that the state’s jobless rate could improve faster under a Romney presidency, according to the people, who asked not to be named. "

"Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an e-mail that Romney frequently praises governors “for their ability to overcome the job-stifling policies of the Obama administration.” Scott spokesman Lane Wright didn’t return phone calls seeking comment. "

"Romney’s staff has concluded there’s no benefit in appearing with Scott, said two campaign advisers who asked for anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter. "

"The state Republican party ran a television ad in March crediting Scott, who is a year and a half into a four-year term, for drops in the unemployment rate. "

"Geralyn Lasher, a spokeswoman for Snyder, said the Romney campaign hasn’t asked the governor to downplay economic improvements. " (referring to Michigan Gov Rick Snyder).

So basically you've got unnamed sources making these claims, and one ad by a super-PAC that said "my kids can't find jobs" in Florida.... which is true that the unemployment rate for young people is way higher than the aggregate rate. That's true anywhere.

also, note that it's republican led states that are faring better?

yeah, pretty lame article if you actually read it, and another lame attempt to defend your guy by saying it's okay that he's amnest-izing for votes because Romney's campaigning for votes too.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-21-2012, 8:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
John, While I agree with you completely on that point, I'll add A.) that's not a new problem by any stretch of the imagination, and B.) it's becoming a tired excuse by some as a defense of BHO's actions to simply say, "everyone does it" or "that's no different than any other politician" or "Romney would do the same thing" or the most tired excuse... "Bush did it too". Wrong is wrong.
I believe that this is completely wrong. It's important to acknowledge that no politician is going to serve the people without something changing. Otherwise we continue to use the same pointless argument for advancing partisan goals. What is the point of saying the banana is rotten so we should vote for the rotten apple?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
]The tea party has become a favorite punching bag by the media and many TRY to dismiss it as irrelevant, but the idea that wrong is wrong is part of what kick started that movement. It's a common argument, from you especially, that republicans historically have been no better than democrats. And that is true.
The problem with the Tea Party is it's ideology. It simply wants to reduce spending by govt and reduce what govt does without taking a comprehensive look at cause and effect. I never saw a Tea Party protest sign that said... "Get out of Afghanistan or Iraq". Maybe one existed somewhere. The Tea Party is too myopic. It doesn't convey any sense of understanding the economy or economic forces. The basis premise of the Tea Party by appearance sake is simply "Every man for himself and pollute at will". They will have to construct a more sophisticated message than that is they ever want to gain some ground.

The one thing the Tea Party got right as well as OWS is that.... We need to be telling our politicians what to do instead of asking them what they will. However, in order for the people to fulfill this obligation we also need to have a coherent and collective agreement on what needs to be done. This requires intelligently addressing the issues and concerns of the majority in a way that enlightens them. Not simply standing your ground and insisting "my way or the highway".
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-21-2012, 10:23 AM Reply   
"LOL!! So your not denying it, just saying its ok to manipluate citizenship laws because another politician is downplaying economic stats. Gotcha"

Denying what? I personally think it is okay to grant amnesty under the conditions listed. Notice that Romney did not take the typical conservative viewpoint when asked about Obama's plan. It was a "Let's change the subject to something else" response. Also, notice that when news broke that Rubio was not being vetted for VP, the next day Romney announces he is being vetted. Let's just be honest with one another, Rubio has little to no chance of being selected as Romney's running mate (maybe a potential cabinet position). So why publicly announce Rubio is now being vetted?

"In the coming weeks, it won't matter for Obama. He is going to have a rough June/July"

With June being almost over, how so?

"yeah, pretty lame article if you actually read it"

What's lame about it? Whether you believe Romney is wanting to supress Gov. Scott's message or not, you have to admit states reporting drops in unemployment is pretty damning to Romney's key message, particularly in battleground states such as FL.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-21-2012, 10:54 AM Reply   
Court is said to announce Obamacare and Arizona immigration decisions this month. Also, Holder drama unfolding
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-21-2012, 10:55 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
LOL!! So your not denying it, just saying its ok to manipluate citizenship laws because another politician is downplaying economic stats. Gotcha
Of course it's ok. We expect the party to reach out (aka pander) to get votes. The whole point is winning. And what Obama did is consistent with liberal ideology. People who came to this country as children have no other country. It's a humane philosophy to afford them more protections than adults who come here illegally.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-21-2012, 11:15 AM Reply   
but it's not ok to circumvent congress the way that he does. It's not ok for any Prez.

He has certainly set himself up for a P.R. nightmare......regardless of intentions or the truth
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-21-2012, 11:21 AM Reply   
The unemployment rate in Florida is seasonal--most people are headed down there on vacation--so there is still little to no job growth besides the tourist industry--happens every year about this time. The governor must trying to make himself look good while the Romney camp is doing a bad job of responding to the article, or the Dems., which is probably closer to the truth, are doing a much better job of manipulating the media and are now sitting back and laughing at the whole ordeal.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-21-2012, 11:39 AM Reply   
As a resident of Florida I find it hard to conceive of anything that Scott has done to reduce unemployment.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-21-2012, 11:40 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
but it's not ok to circumvent congress the way that he does. It's not ok for any Prez.

He has certainly set himself up for a P.R. nightmare......regardless of intentions or the truth
Define OK.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-21-2012, 11:43 AM Reply   
"Also, Holder drama unfolding"

Why, because he continued a program that was in place years before Obama took office? It was called Operation Wide Receiver then instead of Fast and Furious.
It's a political move just as it was when Karl Rove was found in contempt of Congress. Whatever came of that?
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-21-2012, 1:12 PM Reply   
I wasn't defending a side. I am just saying that, especially if the Court rules against Obama in the Obamacare and Arizona cases, along with the contempt charges, it won't be very difficult to turn the public against him.

I think that's a fair comment regardless of which side of the isle you vote.

I am not trying to pretend to be unbiased here. Everyone on WW knows my leanings.

I am just saying that current events are giving his opposition a lot of ammunition.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-21-2012, 1:22 PM Reply   
I wondered when this F&F would get folded into this conversation.

Wide Receiver was initiated under Bush. (again, trying to shift blame from your guy to Bush/Romney/etc) However, wide receiver was set up more as a sting operation and in coordination with the Mexican government. Sell the guns and then bust the buyers. F&F which WAS initiated under Obama's watch, was simply knowingly sell the guns to the cartels/smugglers and let them walk (e.g. lose track of them in hopes of tracking them down magically somehow). without the Mexican government's knowledge or consent while who knows how many Mexicans were and are still being murdered w/them (the same Mexicans he cares so much about by granting them amnesty to their cousins in our country now). and one border patrol agent being murdered by these "walked" guns.

at the end of the day, it's not the botched operation that's the issue. It's the lying and covering up who knew what and when.

You guys who voted for BHO on the premise of an open, transparent, we've got nothing to hide administration must be really confused by this and many other not-so-open, transparent shenanigans.

Keep an eye on this story... Race card to be played in 3....2....
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-21-2012, 1:24 PM Reply   
P.S. Wes, Rove was a political adviser, not Attorney General of the United States.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       06-21-2012, 1:29 PM Reply   
2....1.... Blam! Ladies and Gentlemen I present you, the Race Card.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...arge-On-Racism
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-21-2012, 6:52 PM Reply   
"Rove was a political adviser"

Make that the senior advisor to the president and deputy chief of staff.

Is anyone supposed to be even slightly surprised that Al Sharpton is proclaiming it's about race. Granted, probably a quarter of conservatives still can't accept a black president, but the other three quarters can't stand that a democrat is president, and more than likely, will easily win the White House again in November. It's not a race game, but a political game. Something you guys were bashing Obama about earlier.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-21-2012, 7:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
2....1.... Blam! Ladies and Gentlemen I present you, the Race Card.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...arge-On-Racism
What took so long?

When everything is bleak and you're caught dead to rights; scream racism!
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-21-2012, 8:11 PM Reply   
Actually, the House of Representatives, under then-Speaker Pelosi, never took up the resolution and never voted on it. Today Pelosi said that SHE could have arrested Rove at any moment. Sheriff Pelosi did not have the power to arrest. The House would have first had to vote......
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-21-2012, 8:34 PM Reply   
actually Obama pulling the executive privilege card means he just admitted to knowing/ acknowledging documents that he said himself had nothing to do with or did not exists. He just connected himself directly to this mess and I don't think everyone really remembers this, but, a federal officer was killed with one of these weapons. That adds a whole other level to all this. Also, the democrats were starting to ratchet up the anti gun machine again. The usual players were talking about all the weapons the Americans were selling the Mexicans and showing them on TV. My guess was this was going to be the front to push for gun regulation again and that is why they were letting them walk. This has big fat rat all over it.

The only people that care that Obama is black (but equally white) is other black people and liberals. White people really don't give a crap.

Sounds like the logic you guys put on the Tea Party is exactly what I have felt about democrats my whole life. Myopic. Don't consider social or economic consequences and very prone to group think.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-21-2012, 9:08 PM Reply   
^When Bush did it for Karl Rove, did that directly implicate Bush in the Scooter Libby saga? This means one of two things: either your argument is flawed or Bush was involved in the scandal. Which one is it?

There has been little to no mention of gun control legislature by Obama during his presidency. Just more fear mongering by GOP.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-21-2012, 9:13 PM Reply   
I'm saying that it doesn't matter. The negative press on this will keep Obama and Holder busy for a while. He could have avoided it by not invoking privilege and Holder had 18 months to show the documents.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-21-2012, 9:26 PM Reply   
Gun control is still a priority for this administration http://www.franklincountyvapatriots....-trade-treaty/
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       06-22-2012, 8:19 PM Reply   
It was not Obama's direct people. It was congress critters that were starting to ratchet up the anti gun talk.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-25-2012, 7:36 AM Reply   
"Court is said to announce Obamacare and Arizona immigration decisions this month."

"I am just saying that, especially if the Court rules against Obama in the Obamacare and Arizona cases, along with the contempt charges, it won't be very difficult to turn the public against him."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...key-provision/

Is this going to make it more "difficult to turn the public against him"?

Last edited by wake77; 06-25-2012 at 7:40 AM.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-25-2012, 8:16 AM Reply   
Jeremy, what you saw:

Court strikes down Arizona immigration law.

What it said:

Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place

Just sayin'
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-25-2012, 8:35 AM Reply   
the part of the law that the Obama administration really wanted struck down, was upheld.

This was more of a win for Arizona than a win for Obama

I would like to have the whole thing upheld.

A key point here is that the state has no power as to deportation. If the Fed decides to do nothing, thats that, as they say. That's not good news to border states
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-25-2012, 10:20 AM Reply   
^How so? Lawsuits can still be filed by persons that have evidence of civil rights violations against the state. Kennedy clearly stated that in his opinion on the case. Justice Kennedy:

"On the immigration checks provision, Kennedy wrote that "uncertainty" over how that policy would be carried out prevent the court from assuming it would conflict with federal law. "As a result, the United States cannot prevail in its current challenge," Kennedy wrote."

Aka, I have no problem reading. Notice also that I posted a link from Fox News ("Fair and Balanced") so I wouldn't be accused of being stupified by the "liberal mainstream media".

Read it however you want, but it basically boils down to the federal government supercedes the state when it comes to immigration, which was the core of the lawsuit. I hardly see how that is "more of a win for Arizona". Representative Smith seems to agree:

"Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday's ruling "essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration."
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       06-25-2012, 10:33 AM Reply   
"the void created by the Obama administration."

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-25-2012, 11:29 AM Reply   
Did anyone else watch Brewer's news conference? She avoided every question the press asked and was then wisked off stage. She looked relatively uneasy particularly when asked about how the law was "vindicated" after the ruling by the SC.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-25-2012, 2:29 PM Reply   
We were at the firing range this morning when she was speaking. I couldn't hear her speech for all the gunfire. Actually it was in the restaurant and we were in line to get our targets and pay.

Jeremy, we all read into it was we want. At least we're all optimists.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-27-2012, 7:58 AM Reply   
the President, AG, and now Homeland Security have stated,(in relation to abortion funding, New Black Panther voting intimidation, illegal immigration....etc...) that they won't enforce the laws that our law makers have made, or assist states in enforcing the laws. This administration has no use for the House of Representatives.

I think that this is a dangerous precedent no matter which side of the isle you favor.

Imagine if the Court upholds Obamacare and Romney wins in November. What is to stop him from ignoring the law and not imposing punishment/"tax" collection?

What if, at some time in the future, capital gains tax is raised to say 25%. A new President then publicly announces that the government will only pursue people who pay the capital gains tax of less than 15%

Take any scenario that you want. This is a dangerous precedent.

I know that some of you will justify it and say that it's not apples to apples. I disagree.

By the way, there are now democrats who are going to vote to hold the AG in contempt. In the past, Presidents would ask for a resignation in order to limit the fall out. Obama is to arrogant for that. History will not show this to be a good characteristic of his

Last edited by ord27; 06-27-2012 at 8:01 AM.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:54 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us