ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [310] -- Courtin' Season

[ Posted Friday, June 27th, 2014 – 16:52 PDT ]

'Tis the season when the political press all goes a-courtin'. So to speak.

The end of June is an important time on the political calendar, but it is one which most Americans don't really think about all that much. It's hard to fault this, since summer is the low ebb of the political season in general, and since Independence Day is just around the corner. But the end of June is also the end of the Supreme Court's judicial year, when they issue the biggest decisions of the past session. So, let's take a very quick run through the important decisions handed down in the past week or so, shall we? In other words, "a-courtin' we will go...."

The biggest news for court-watchers this year is that around half of all the decisions this year have actually been unanimously decided. Seems John Roberts may be trying to push back a bit on the impression that most cases in his court are decided in a 4-5 split, yea or nay. Only the wonkiest of court-watchers have so far noticed, but it's something to keep an eye on.

The other thing worth noting, before we run through the decisions themselves, is that this week is chock-full of anniversaries. It's the 50th for the "Freedom Summer" of registering black votes in Mississippi, and it is the one-year anniversary for the Senate passing a comprehensive immigration bill with a strong bipartisan vote. The House has yet to do anything more on the subject than dither, in the meantime. Judicially, though, it has been only a single year since the decisions on gay marriage were handed down. Think about the immense progress marriage equality has achieved since, and it's easy to forget how monumental these decisions were, only one short year ago. An appeals court just ruled that marriage equality must take place in Utah, of all places. That just wouldn't have been possible a year ago, and it likely wouldn't have happened at all if the high court hadn't ruled against DOMA and Proposition 8. The only question now remaining is: will the case in which the Supreme Court sweepingly tosses out all remaining state laws against marriage equality happen next year or the year after that? That is an immense amount of progress in one year's time, folks.

From the Supreme Court, there was some good news and some bad news for people across the political spectrum. Aereo lost its case against the broadcast networks, as the Supreme Court ruled that recording shows pulled off individual antennas and then providing them later to mobile devices was, essentially, no different than running a cable company. Massachusetts "buffer zones" around abortion clinics were struck down, unanimously (although different justices used different rationales to arrive at the same conclusion). Many have pointed out the incredible irony of a Supreme Court who says buffer zones are illegal while maintaining their own buffer zone which removes protests from their doorstep (in other words, their own steps aren't a "free speech zone").

The Environmental Protection Agency mostly won the right to regulate carbon emissions, although they did lose on one technicality about how they go about doing so. This still means they'll be able to regulate about 97 percent of what they were claiming, so overall it's an environmental win (the decision could have been a lot worse, to put it mildly).

President Obama got his wrist slapped for recess appointments made while the Senate was "in session." Those scare quotes are necessary, because what being "in session" means, in this case, is that during their many many weeks-long vacations scattered throughout the year, the Senate calls upon members from nearby states (wouldn't want to make anyone else fly back, in other words) to drive down to the Capitol once every three days, unlock the chamber, flick on the lights, move to the podium and gavel the Senate into session. After performing this onerous duty (to a completely empty room), the gavel comes down again, and the session is closed. A walk back up the aisle, the lights flicked off, and don't forget to lock the door. Every three days, this has been happening, in recent years. Because of this, the Senate claims it is not actually in recess, but still in session.

President Obama objected, and decided to test the law (as is his right, being a co-equal branch of government). He made some recess appointments anyway. The Supreme Court not only just ruled that he couldn't do so, but that a true recess was one of ten days. That's the new standard. So the entire upshot is the Senate will now only have to perform this Kabuki session once every nine days, instead of once every three.

But, I have to say, Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this situation. They're the ones who came up with the scheme, back when George Bush was in office. And they're also the ones who have been going along with it since then -- Harry Reid has been Majority Leader for Obama's entire term of office, remember. So this isn't (as some have been framing it) a Republican-versus-Democratic fight, it's really a separation-of-powers fight between the legislative and executive branch. Which the executive (Obama) just lost, big time.

The best news from the Supremes in the past week was the decision on how the Fourth Amendment applies to cell phones. The Fourth Amendment was a clear victor in this case. The court's decision can be summed up quite simply as: "Get a warrant." Cops can no longer dig through whatever's on your cell phone for no reason at all. Which is exactly the sort of thing the Fourth Amendment was created for, so this is a clear victory for us all.

In lesser court news, a federal court ruled that the "no fly" list is unconstitutional, which was also welcome news for civil libertarians. New York City won the right to continue to bar unvaccinated children from attending school during medical situations where disease is spreading, which is a victory for public health over religious (or other) objections to vaccinations. Don't want your kids to get the shot? Fine, but they have to stay home during epidemics in their school. Deal with it.

That's about it for this week's courtin', folks. Up early next week: the Hobby Lobby case about employers, religious rights, and birth control, and an important case on unions. That'll wrap up the Supreme Court's calendar for the session. We seem to be running long this week, so we'll just quickly highlight the marijuana news and a few quirky campaign stories, before we get on with the show.

In Oregon, tens of thousands of ballot signatures were delivered (almost twice as many as necessary), meaning a measure to fully legalize recreational marijuana in the state will be on this November's ballot. Many states are waiting until 2016 to try for the ballot (when the electorate is a lot more Democratic, during a presidential year), but we've heard rumors that Rhode Island and Alaska may also go forward this year. Stay tuned.

In the House of Representatives, one Maryland Republican is trying to kill the District of Columbia's new decriminalization law. Since Congress has veto power over D.C., this effort might succeed. Then again, it might actually backfire and legalize marijuana in the District! This is reminiscent of the time when Congress blocked D.C. from counting the votes on a medical marijuana ballot initiative, back in the 1990s.

The F.D.A. is actually considering (at the request of the D.E.A., no less) rescheduling marijuana, but then again this may not actually happen. The article notes that the D.E.A. has veto power over anything the F.D.A. recommends, so this sounds like a case of the D.E.A. being forced legally to jump through some hoops before ultimately turning down the idea.

In this week's news from the front lines of the Republican civil war, Mississippi's Thad Cochran fended off his Tea Party primary opponent, in a stunning runoff victory that not many had predicted (that's a polite way of saying "nobody got this one right!"). Who would have ever predicted headlines like "Black Democratic Voters Provide Victory For Republican Senator," after all? My question for the general election is: will the Democrat in the race create any ads which feature Cochran's bizarre outreach to the pro-bestiality vote, as a last-minute Tea Party group just did? It's mystifying why this isn't a bigger story -- at the very least, on late-night comedy shows.

Huffington Post ran an amusing article which helps us all keep track of the strangest candidates in this year's races, which is worth a read if you want a chuckle or two. Other strange news from the ballot boxes included a guy in college who -- for a joke -- wrote in his name on a ballot... and actually won the race because nobody else voted for anybody. Let this be a lesson, kids, if you're going to be funny, just write in "Mickey Mouse" like everyone else does, or else you might wind up seated on your local Republican Party committee! Wisconsin has finally uncovered a case of intentional voter fraud, but unfortunately for those pushing maniacal voter-suppression laws, it turned out to be a Republican. From the Democratic side of the aisle, the guy who was previously photographed at a party featuring rampant underage drinking lost his bid to become Maryland's governor.

Which brings us to the bottom of the barrel. A Republican House candidate in Oklahoma (who lost his primary by a whopping 83 percent to 5 percent) claims the guy who beat him is nothing more than a look-alike, because the real Republican House member was actually executed (by hanging, no less) by "The World Court" in the Ukraine, back in 2011. One for the "you just can't make this stuff up" file, for sure. A Republican Party official in Arkansas -- who answered a question about how Hillary Clinton would be received in the state were she to run for president by saying: "She’d probably get shot at the state line. Nobody has any affection for her. The majority don't." -- has, thankfully, resigned. However, the Arizona state superintendent of schools whose online statements were recently revealed (which included calling welfare recipients "lazy pigs") announced he will not actually be stepping down (in a performance with lots of crocodile tears). Way to stay classy, GOP!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Primary election results provided our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, as Representative Charlie Rangel beat back a primary challenger in a close race. Rangel has been around for a long time, and has already indicated that he'll be retiring after he wins one more term in November (this is one of those districts where the general election is pretty much a done deal). This will nicely bookend his congressional career, from the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act to the end of the first African-American president's term in office.

Rangel is definitely one of the "old guard" Democrats up on the Hill, but his legacy has been tarnished over ethical problems in the past few years. His district is changing demographically (partly due to redistricting), so it'll be an interesting race two years from now to see who will replace him. But for winning one last term, so he can leave on his own schedule, and for winning such a close primary race, Charlie Rangel is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Representative Charles Rangel on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

The most disappointed Democrat of the week was Travis Childers, the Senate candidate who will now run against Thad Cochran in November. If the Tea Partier had managed to unseat Cochran, Childers might have had a shot at winning a very red state for the Democrats in a particularly bad midterm year. That's "might" and "a very long shot," however, so while he's personally disappointed (no doubt) about running against Cochran, we can't say he was disappointing in any way.

Which leaves us with a repeat award, as new information has now come to light. Phillip Puckett, a Democratic state senator in Virginia, abruptly resigned a few weeks ago (thereby throwing control of the chamber to the Republicans) after being bribed by Republicans to do so. His resignation was widely denounced (including here in these pages, where he won his first MDDOTW award two weeks ago), because it was so obviously a quid pro quo arrangement. In exchange for stepping down, Puckett was offered a vote on giving his daughter a judicial post, and a plum job for himself on the state tobacco commission.

This week, further evidence emerged in the story, in the form of emails to and from the commission which clearly show how the job was meant as a bribe. He may not have broken any laws (Virginia has notoriously lax ethics laws for politicians), but at the very least, the new revelations have earned him his second Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Phillip Puckett is now a private citizen, and it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such people, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 310 (6/27/14)

We've got an eclectic mixed bag of things to cover this week. Not all are strictly partisan issues, but as we get closer and closer to this year's political "silly season," we can expect more and more stories that defy classification. It's an annual thing, in other words.

Anyway, this is running way too long as it is, so let's just dive in to this week's talking points.

 

1
   Churchill said it best, on Iraq

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post deserves all the credit for digging this quote up. It's a dandy one to memorize, in fact, and should be used whenever the subject of Iraq comes up.

"I'd like to quote from Winston Churchill, if I may. Back in 1922, Churchill was Britain's colonial secretary, and he had this to say about Iraq: 'At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.' That almost seems prophetic now, doesn't it? Some things change over time, and some things sadly stay the same."

 

2
   Boehner sues Obama (part one)

Hoo boy. Those who learn nothing from history, eh?

"I see that Speaker of the House John Boehner now says he's going to sue Barack Obama in court, since the House obviously has nothing better to do. Wow. I mean, just... wow. Has he forgotten what happened when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton? The American people have a very thin tolerance for Republicans going on such political vendettas, and Boehner is doing nothing more than courting a backlash in the field of public opinion. Clinton's approval ratings went through the roof during his impeachment -- not because the public believed him about his sexual antics, but because they thought what Republicans were doing was wrong. If I were President Obama right now, I'd be saying 'Bring it on!' -- because if the public reacts the way it did during Clinton's impeachment, then John Boehner could wind up being the reason Obama's approval ratings make a full recovery."

 

3
   Sue me for doing my job

President Obama greeted the news with nothing short of glee, at least as evidenced by what he's been saying about it. This is a two-for-the-price-of-one talking point, from two separate articles. Here's the first Obama response:

What I've told Speaker Boehner directly is, if you're really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why don't you try getting something done through Congress? The majority of American people want to see immigration reform done. We had a bipartisan bill through the Senate. And you're going to squawk if I try to fix some parts of it administratively that are within my authority, while you are not doing anything?

And the second, which was much snappier:

They've decided to sue me for doing my job. If you're mad at me for helping people on my own then join me and we'll do it together. I want to work with you, but you gotta give me something. You gotta try to deliver something. Anything.

 

4
   Call McCarthy's bluff!

Kevin McCarthy, who will become the new House Majority Leader, gave an interview last weekend in which he tried to lay the blame for stuff not getting done in Congress at Harry Reid's feet. Paul Abrams of the Huffington Post wrote the best response I've seen yet to this accusation. The following is an excerpt from his article, which is worth reading in full:

Instead of arguing the point, Harry Reid should offer McCarthy a deal.

Here it is: the Senate will bring up for a vote, without amendment, a House-passed bill of McCarthy's choosing in exchange for the House doing the same for a Senate-passed bill of Reid's choosing. There is no requirement that the bill pass in the other chamber, just that the other chamber votes on it.

Simple. Fair. Straightforward. To make it work, Reid and McCarthy should hand each other a sealed envelope with one bill each week already passed by their respective chambers that they want voted upon by the other chamber. No sealed envelope, no bill.

It calls McCarthy's bluff.

Depending on the number of such bills that each side wants voted upon by the other chamber, this could produce a veritable river of yeas and a mountain of nays.

Or, McCarthy will show he was bluffing.

 

5
   King Canute and the tides

This one is legendary, that's for sure.

"I see that the North Carolina government didn't like the results of a study it had commissioned, because the scientists not only predicted a rise in sea level of 39 inches in the next century, but they also helpfully provided maps which showed which expensive coastal real estate would thus be underwater (in a quite literal sense). The real estate industry freaked out, so the government has now decided that it'd be better if they just issued a report which covered the next 30 years instead, which only show an 8-inch rise in sea level. Boy, that'll solve the problem! You can choose your metaphor here, folks, either one of sticking their heads in the sand, or perhaps of King Canute ordering back the tides. The shortsightedness is simply breathtaking."

 

6
   Vote for it, or else!

Who says political irony is dead?

"Representative Michael Grimm is now cosponsoring the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which would require schools to create anti-bullying policies. As Teddy Roosevelt might have said: 'Well, bully for him!' I'm sorry, but this is amusing to me because maybe Grimm might instead want to write a bill to create such policies for himself. This is the same guy, remember, who threatened to break a reporter 'in half,' or perhaps just toss him off a Capitol balcony -- on camera, no less! So I have to wonder, how is Grimm going to round up votes for his bill? Threaten his colleagues to 'vote for it... or else'? Talk about ignoring the plank in your own eye...."

 

7
   Peter-tweeters

Will it never end? I mean, seriously. Two more candidates for the Anthony Weiner Peter-Tweeter Hall of Fame.

"There should be a hard and fast rule, so to speak, for all politicians and government employees. Call it the 'Peter-Tweeter Principle' if you will. This rule consists of: 'Don't ever take or send photos of your genitalia. Ever!' This week we had two such morons in the news, the first a Naval War College professor who -- ironically enough -- is a strong supporter of N.S.A. spying. His online photography skills were was exposed (ahem) this week for all to see. And then there was the chief of staff of a Republican House member from Ohio who had to quickly resign when his ex-girlfriend -- a porn star, no less -- posted an intimate photo of his junk online. How long is it going to take for people to learn the basic Peter-Tweeter Principle? In short: Don't do it. Ever. To anyone. For any reason. Ever, ever, ever. You'd think everyone would have learned this by now, but apparently not."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

147 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [310] -- Courtin' Season”

  1. [1] 
    Pastafarian Dan wrote:

    Re: the moron in OK....
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the World Court even has the Death Penalty. Most of the rest of the world has done away with it entirely.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    This whole "Obama being sued for doing his job" is a load of malarkey...

    Obama is not issuing Executive Orders left and right because Congress is not doing their job..

    Obama is issuing Executive Orders left and right because Congress is doing their job in a way counter to Obama's demands...

    That's the beginning and end of the story...

    How do I know what Obama is doing is wrong??

    Because if any GOP had done these things, ya'all would be going batshit hysterically crazy over it...

    If ya'all are honest, you would admit that it's true...

    My fervent hope is that the next GOP POTUS issues TWICE as many Executive Orders as Obama has..

    It would be worth it JUST to see ya'all's reaction... :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    We actually don't even have to postulate ya'alls reaction to a future GOP POTUS...

    All we have to do is think back to ya'alls reaction to Bush's Executive Orders and Signing Statements..

    Ya'all went apeshit over them...

    But, now.. Now that it's YOUR guy who is issuing the Executive Orders and Signing Statements, all of the sudden, they are the right thing to do..

    As I have always said, I wish ya'all could take a step back from yourselves, forget Party loyalty for just a moment and see the glaring and blatantly obvious hypocrisy here..

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    They've decided to sue me for doing my job. If you're mad at me for helping people on my own then join me and we'll do it together. I want to work with you, but you gotta give me something. You gotta try to deliver something. Anything.

    The problem with giving Obama ANYTHING is that he simply cannot be trusted...

    Immigration "reform" is a perfect example.. The Democrats idea of "reform" is what we are seeing at the southern border right now. It's a "YA'ALL COME" invitation...

    Border Security??

    Obama says, "We'll get to that after we institute the Amnesty program. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you??"

    The Republican demand on REAL Immigration reform is simple.

    Secure the border first...

    THEN we can talk about amnesty..

    But ya'all don't want compromise. Ya'all don't want Republicans to "work with" Obama and the Democrats.

    Ya'all want total surrender, utter capitulation.. And ya'all cry and whine in your Wheaties because Republicans won't go along and have the unmitigated GALL to actually fight back..

    This is the kind of government that Barack Obama created and that ya'all wanted..

    Obama and the Democrats can't get pithy and whiney just because it's not going the way they wanted...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    One only has to look at what's happening on the southern border to know that the Democrat's idea of Immigration "reform" would be an unmitigated disaster for this country...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Boehner sues Obama (part one)

    If it was JUST the House who was up in arms about Obama's lawlessness, ya'all MIGHT have a case...

    But consider that the SCOTUS has UNANIMOUSLY (not once, but TWICE) slapped down Obama for his extra-legal activities.. Just in the last week alone..

    It's important to note that the SCOTUS actions were UNANIMOUS.. That means the liberals on the court, even those who were APPOINTED by Obama, stated for the record that Obama's actions were a bridge too far...

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-06/why-obama-keeps-losing-at-the-supreme-court

    So, it's not just House Republicans who have a problem with Obama's (so called) leadership..

    The SCOTUS apparently agrees that Obama is off his rocker...

    That puts the House's lawsuit in a whole new light. A light that should make Obama and the Democrats VERY afraid...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Republican Party official in Arkansas -- who answered a question about how Hillary Clinton would be received in the state were she to run for president by saying: "She’d probably get shot at the state line. Nobody has any affection for her. The majority don't." -- has, thankfully, resigned.

    How dare he!!!

    Democrats are only supposed to attack Republicans in disgusting and vile ways...

    How DARE a Republican think he can attack a Democrat in kind...

    Somebody get a rope!!

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Suing Obama isn't just s stunt, its an UNCONSTITUTIONAL stunt. In keeping with SCOTUS continuing to exercise powers the Constitution never gave it, such a suit asks the court to judge the Executive. The. The court has no such power. The Constitutional method is for the House to impeach and let the SENATE judge the Executive. But, since amy such effort would fail, the House wants to ignore the Constitution and stage a show trial instead.

    Obama had issued fewer executive orders than any recent President. FAR fewer than Bush. And unlike Bush's orders, Obama's are well within his authority. Michale's false equivalency argument claiming purely partisan Democratic support for Obama as opposed to Bush, is both predictable and predictably untrue.

    House Republicans objects to Obama's Obamacare orders because they wanted the law to fail. Its the President's job to try to make laws work. That's what executive orders are for.

    They object to his immigration orders. Deportations are far higher under Obama than under Bush. There's no question that their aren't enough resources to detain and deport every illegal. As with the House objection to the prisoner swap, the House is simply trying to exert authority to direct the Presidents actions. The House has no such authority.

    These House stunts are an attempt to convince the rubes who vote Republican that Obama is breaking the law when in fact its the Republicans who are breaking the law. They want to impeach the President without actually impeaching the President, because they know they couldn't convince either the Senate, or the public in a fair trial. So they're hoping for a federal judge biased enough to exceed his authority and both accept the case and, ideally, rule in their favor. Although simply having a judge legitimize their claims by accepting the case would meet their election-year propaganda goals.

    The statutes the House passes in an attempt to constrain the President are unconstitutional. They can only be enforced by impeachment. And impeachment needs no other statutory authorization.

    Republicans simply know that they can't win in court so they're shopping for a kangaroo court. The Senate being the ONLY court under the law, they're hoping federal courts will supply the kangaroo court they need. As even a refusal by federal courts would allow Republicans to punt to their pet SCOTUS and hope it will, once again, join them in violating the constitution.

    A not unreasonable expectation since SCOTUS ROUTINELY violates the Constitution! As its decisions on abortion buffer zones and recess appointments amply illustrates.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, LD..

    You could have saved a LOT of typing by simply saying:

    Everything Bush did was wrong. Everything Obama has done is right. Bush is Satan. Obama is The Messiah

    See how much easier and faster that would have been to type?

    What you said and what I typed is identical as far as meaning goes...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    A big long diatribe from LD and not a SINGLE fact to be found..

    Color me surprised... {/sarcasm}

    :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an aside to David...

    Here's a chance to address the mindless Party Loyalty that we agreed is part and parcel to the problem we discussed earlier..

    Have at it.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your hysterical laden soliloquy against the House forgets one simple fact.

    The SCOTUS has ALSO slapped down Obama for his executive overreach.. UNANIMOUSLY, I might add...

    Don't tell me, let me guess..

    The SCOTUS, INCLUDING the Democrats who Obama appointed to the bench are ALSO wrong...

    Obama is the Messiah and, therefore, cannot be wrong..

    That's basically what you are saying...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Don't give a rats ass if the SCOTUS decision was unanimous. YOU keep claiming everything is partisan, Michale. Its NEVER been true.

    Exactly what constitutional principle is the SCOTUS decision on interim appointments supposed to be recognizing? The right of Congress to abuse its advise and consent role to prevent the President from administering the law? The right of Congress to lie about being in session? The newly created mythical constitutional requirement that recesses must be at least 10 days? NONE of that is in the Constitution. Congress has NO constitutional right to circumvent the law! SCOTUS, as usual, just makes things up, and demonstrates their OWN lack of respect for the law by LYING about what the constitution requires and intends.

    True, Democrats began this tactic in an attempt to prevent Bush from breaking the law when he was appointing people the Senate had rejected. Unconstitutionally refusing to take no for an answer. Now Republicans are using it to AGAIN break the law. Which only proves that two wrongs don't make a right. Bush simply needed impeaching. In your endless clims of false equivalency you ALWAYS ignore the simple fact that Bush's actions broke the law. Repeatedly. Democratic complaints were justified. Republican claims of Obama breaking the law are simply lies.

    And the law regarding impeachment IS A FACT, Michale. The President is equal to SCOTUS, not subject to their supervision. THAT is the law. That is a FACT. Unlike the garbage you just make up, Michale.

    As always, your tiresome unsubstantiated, unspecific claims of partisanship, bias, and lack of facts, are just your usual lies.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    True, Democrats began this tactic in an attempt to prevent Bush from breaking the law when he was appointing people the Senate had rejected

    And did you say a peep about it then??

    No???

    COLOR ME SHOCKED!!! :D

    Basically, this simply proves what I have been saying is true..

    If your guy does it, it's perfectly OK...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    In your endless clims of false equivalency you ALWAYS ignore the simple fact that Bush's actions broke the law.

    So does Obama's... That's the point you simply refuse to see..

    If Bush broke the law with his actions, then Obama is ALSO breaking the law...

    That is simply logic, your hysterical fact-less diatribes notwithstanding...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCOTUS, as usual, just makes things up, and demonstrates their OWN lack of respect for the law by LYING about what the constitution requires and intends.

    You didn't have a problem when the SCOTUS approved TrainWreckCare...

    "Gee!!! I wonder why that is!!!???"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather funny...

    The Left was hysterical about "lawlessness" during the Bundy Ranch standoff...

    But now when we are seeing REAL lawlessness on the southern border, the Left is down their greeting the criminals with open arms..

    The stench of hypocrisy is as overpowering as it is nauseating...

    Funny, iddn't it..

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I realize that the Washington Redskins issue was not a part of this Friday Talking Points...

    But this is simply too good of a talking point to pass up..

    Army’s Apache under assault: PC police call helicopter’s name racist
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/27/army-vets-blast-pc-police-for-attacking-apache-chi/

    The one line from that article is especially apropos and applies to PC Police in general..

    “What floors me is that for the most part, it isn’t American Indians who are offended. It is guilt-ridden white liberals being offended on their behalf. How’s that for paternalism?”

    Where does it end, people??

    When we have a Brave New World where everyone acts alike, dresses alike and thinks exactly alike??

    So much for diversity, eh??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    What ya'all seem to forget is that "diversity" means embracing many different ideas and lifestyles and ways of thinking.

    Not just the ones that ya'all happen to agree with...

    Ya know.. "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it."

    Pedantic and old-fashioned stuff like that... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it's funny..

    Ya'all are always complaining about Republicans being obstructionist in pursuit of their agenda..

    But now, Harry Light-Skinned-Negro Reid has changed the Senate rules (AGAIN) so that a 60-Vote Majority is required to add amendments..

    And WHY is Harry Negro-Dialect Reid doing this??

    To protect fellow Democrats from hard votes before the mid-term elections..

    So, basically Reid is playing politics and insuring NOTHING will get done in the Senate until after the Mid-Terms..

    Thereby proving, ONCE AGAIN, that I am dead on ballz accurate when I say that there really isn't any difference between what Democrats do and what ya'all accuse Republicans of doing..

    Not ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2014/06/29/obamas-woe-is-me-attitude/

    There it is...

    The perfect description of our Whiner In Chief..

    It's all about him..

    Everything is about him...

    Doesn't matter one whit how bad the country is..

    It's all about Obama..

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Ya'all are always complaining about Republicans being obstructionist in pursuit of their agenda..

    What is the Republican agenda, as you see it? Or, does that sort of thing even interest you?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agendas in general don't interest me...

    Why??

    Because they are like religious fanaticism...

    SOLELY based on hysterical emotionalism and very little to do with facts or reality...

    Doesn't matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats...

    Either side has proven that they will forgo facts in the pursuit of their own "religion"....

    I can cite hundreds of examples to support that claim..

    I am as politically agnostic as I am religiously agnostic...

    Facts, reality and common sense are the "gods" that I recognize...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Facts, reality and common sense are the "gods" that I recognize...

    Now, THAT's hilarious.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, THAT's hilarious.

    Perhaps..

    "Just the facts, ma'am.."
    -Joe Friday

    :D

    But consider the other side's arguments...

    "Obama didn't lie"

    "There were no health insurance cancellations"

    And so on and so on...

    So, on the one hand, you have statements like that..

    On the other hand, you have me...

    You decide... :D

    Michale

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:
  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I see that Speaker of the House John Boehner now says he's going to sue Barack Obama in court, since the House obviously has nothing better to do. Wow. I mean, just... wow. Has he forgotten what happened when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton? The American people have a very thin tolerance for Republicans going on such political vendettas, and Boehner is doing nothing more than courting a backlash in the field of public opinion. Clinton's approval ratings went through the roof during his impeachment -- not because the public believed him about his sexual antics, but because they thought what Republicans were doing was wrong. If I were President Obama right now, I'd be saying 'Bring it on!' -- because if the public reacts the way it did during Clinton's impeachment, then John Boehner could wind up being the reason Obama's approval ratings make a full recovery."

    There is a big difference between impeaching Bill Clinton then and impeaching Barack Obama now...

    First and foremost, the country was doing pretty well under Clinton.. Clinton was popular BEFORE the impeachment, so he had the advantage of looking "picked on" by the mean old Republicans..

    In there here and now, the economy is in the crapper.. Our prestige across the planet is at it's lowest point in this country's history..

    And Obama's approval AND likability AND integrity AND trustworthy numbers are low and sinking fast.. There is not ONE SINGLE positive in ALL of Obama's poll numbers. Every factor that CAN be polled about Obama is underwater...

    So, the way I see it, two things will have to happen for a successful impeachment of the POTUS.

    1. The GOP will have to take the Senate...

    2. Obama's poll numbers will have to sink below 40% and stay there for a while...

    As to #1, this is all but a forgone conclusion. The GOP will control Congress after the midterms..

    #2 is also extremely likely as there are so many hits going against Obama right now and the possibility that there is more bad news coming is a very real and distinct threat..

    Look at the IRS scandal.. Lerner's two years of emails were obviously disappeared for a reason. Does anyone here honestly believe that, if there was no smoking gun, that those emails would have been lost forever?? It's a forgone conclusion that those emails contain very incriminating information. So, it's likely that what DOES trickle out from the IRS scandal will create a "death from a thousand cuts" syndrome for the Obama Administration.

    Another area that is pounding at the Administration is the southern border situation. The Administration tried to float the BS story that it was violence in the countries that prompted the mass migration. But that lie was immediately shot down by reports from the border that overwhelmingly confirmed that it was Obama's DACA pronouncement that brought the refugees to the border.. So, the attempt by the Administration to shirk responsibility was DOA... As it continues to worsen, as US resources are stretched WAY past the breaking point, the Obama Administration will bear full ownership of the debacle...

    And, of course, there are still the VA scandals, Bengahzi is on simmer and the Obama Administration is STILL getting hits from the Fast/Furious scandal...

    Now, you rub all these facts (and they ARE facts, regardless of what Obamabot fanatics will tell you) together and they all point to the VERY REAL threat that Obama will not only be impeached, but that it actually might pass the Senate and Obama will become the very first sitting POTUS to be removed from office...

    All it will take is the GOP to take the Senate (all but assured) and Obama's poll numbers taking a dive, which is what is happening right now...

    Remember.. You heard it here first... :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, having said all of the afore, one thing might derail the impeachment process and could possibly dissuade Republicans from following this course of action.

    President Joe Biden....

    :D

    Now, personally, *I* don't have a problem with this. Biden, despite his gaffs and chronic foot-in-mouth condition, has proven to be a (somewhat) honorable man. For a Democrat politician anyways... :D

    And, it's forgone conclusion that Biden could not do worse than Obama, even if he tried... NO ONE could be THAT bad..

    And, finally, even if a President Biden tried to be Obama's mini-me, there would be a limit to the damage he could do. POTUS Biden would be way too busy picking up the pieces of a demolished Democratic Party to do TOO much damage to the country...

    So, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not President Biden would be enough of a deterrent for Republicans pursuing impeachment..

    The prevailing thought governing the impeachment action would possibly (likely??) be that ANYONE is better than Obama...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Your an Economics kinda guy...

    Martin Armstrong Warns Civil Unrest Is Rising Everywhere: "This Won't End Pretty"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-28/martin-armstrong-warns-civil-unrest-rising-everywhere-wont-end-pretty

    Your thoughts??

    It makes a lot of sense to me...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Yes, and then there's you, Michale.

    You claim the IRS unconstitutional targeted conservatives because the IRS IG said so. Then when the IRS IG said the IRS didn't target conservatives he suddenly is not to be believed. So, with NO evidence of conservatives being targeted you resort to the absurd argument that conservatives MUST have been targeted because a lot of Conservatives complained. The fact that Conservatives have been complaining about EVERYTHING since Obama took office is lost on you. Apparently Obama is a Kenyan Muslim as well, since Conservatives also complained about Obama not being an American or Christian.--If Conservatives COMPLAIN then it MUST be true!

    In spite of the fact that the EVIDENCE shows Conservatives were NOT targeted by the IRS you're convinced that Learner's disk crash and lost emails PROVES a conspiracy to cover-up the targeting all the evidence PROVES never happened. Because you think people can reasonably "infer" things contrary to all the ACTUAL evidence. To you THAT'S "common sense."

    And the FACT that cancelling policies is ILLEGAL doesn't affect your conviction that MILLIONS of policies were cancelled. Because EVERYBODY KNOWS they were!--Not ONE lawsuit has been filed. Not ONE insurance executive has been called to testify before Congress. Not ONE person has been called to testify on camera before Congress about the devastating injury they suffered when their policy was cancelled. Not ONE cancelled policy has been waved in front of the cameras by Congress, or even Fox News.--Yet once again contrary to the actual FACTS, and without a SHRED of evidence, you CHOOSE to believe another winger conspiracy theory only "proven" by the claims of prejudiced partisan wingers, such as yourself.

    So, people can believe the evidence, the FACTS--or they can believe you, and whatever all the other wingers are claiming is a "scandal" this week.

    Because if the media says it, it MUST be true!--Unless its a live broadcast of civil rights violations. Which YOU claim never happened.--Damn lying history texts!--There's no racism in America, and there never has been. EVERYBODY (on the Right) knows THAT too!

    So who're you gonna believe? Facts, and your LYING EYES! or Michale?

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You claim the IRS unconstitutional targeted conservatives because the IRS IG said so.

    No, I claim that IRS targeted Conservatives because the IRS *CONFESSED* to targeting Conservatives..

    Then when the IRS IG said the IRS didn't target conservatives

    Your cite for this??

    So, with NO evidence of conservatives being targeted you resort to the absurd argument that conservatives MUST have been targeted because a lot of Conservatives complained.

    AND the IRS *CONFESSED* to targeting Conservatives..

    In spite of the fact that the EVIDENCE shows Conservatives were NOT targeted by the IRS

    No such evidence exists....

    And the FACT that cancelling policies is ILLEGAL doesn't affect your conviction that MILLIONS of policies were cancelled.

    Like nearly 1 million Californians, Cowart had a policy that was canceled last fall because it didn't comply with requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-doctor-networks-20140629-story.html#page=1

    Because if the media says it, it MUST be true!--Unless its a live broadcast of civil rights violations. Which YOU claim never happened.--

    Example???

    No??? Didna think so...

    So who're you gonna believe? Facts, and your LYING EYES! or Michale?

    When you HAVE any facts, I'll be happy to consider them..

    But another long diatribe totally devoid of facts...

    As an aside to Liz..

    This is the EXACT kind of typical No-Information Hysterical Party fanatic that I was referring to...

    And the fact that NO ONE here in Weigantia (sans your's truly) disputes these outlandish fantasies would seem to indicate that ya'all agree with them...

    So, you can see why fanatical hysterical Party agendas from EITHER side of the aisle don't interest me much...

    Like religious fanaticism, no amount of logic, facts, reason or common sense will dissuade people from their beliefs.. Their faith..

    But, as the Grand PooBah has pointed out, the fun isn't always in the capitulation.. :D

    So.... Which way do ya think the SCOTUS will decide???

    Slapping down the Obama Administration again?? :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an aside to Liz..

    This is the EXACT kind of typical No-Information Hysterical Party fanatic that I was referring to...

    "Al?? What are you doing? Why are you dragging me into this??"
    -Robin Williams, ALADDIN

    :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    LewDan wrote:

    By the way, Michale, you seem impressed by one of the most incoherent rants on the economy that I've ever seen!

    He rails against the "Nanny state" and socialism AS WELL as Capitalism and banks. He apparently thinks bank bailouts are another form of welfare. In America the bank bailouts were PAID BACK by the banks, with interest.

    Hardly a means of bankrupting the world! Using TAX DOLLARS to MAKE MONEY?! What a concept!

    Also bankrupting the world, apparently, would be politicians pensions!--Because its just not possible for people to defer salary so that it may be invested to supply them with retirement income!

    Now, in the REAL world, among people who actually KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS! its the Right, not the Left, that's been bankrupting the world. Its "privatizing" government services which adds costs not value. Its LOOTING pensions to finance TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH that places the burden of paying pensions on taxpayers. If the wealthy would PAY TAXES instead of STEALING pensions taxpayers wouldn't have to pay the pensions themselves. If laborers had the same collective bargaining power business enjoys THEY'D be earning living wages and supporting economies instead of executives earning THOUSANDS of times what actual PRODUCTIVE workers in corporations earn.

    But you, Michale, and this clown you cite, firmly believe that the problem is all the assistance the poor get, and its just WRONG to expect the wealthy pay more taxes. The RICH are ENTITLED to KEEP the money THEY have. While people who merely EARN their money MUST PAY TAXES.--And if they don't have enough to live on after that--well, they should have been born RICH!

    THAT'S the economic theory Michale finds impressive. That the well-off are ENTITLED to be well-off. Everyone else, is not.

    That the cause of economic collapse isn't the wealthy accumulating all the wealth and refusing to support the economy, its the perverse efforts of politicians to keep working people alive! Who needs them?! Its the senior management, the CEOs and CFOs who're REALLY the productive ones! That's why they earn so much! It has NOTHING to do with THEIR setting their own salaries! Nothing to do with THEIR having contracts and the lower to negotiate compensation.
    That's why unions are so bad! NO ONE should have the power to negotiate their pay! Unless they've senior management, or RICH, of course.

  34. [34] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michael,

    I've given you the cites for the IGs testimony and you've ignored them. I've very clearly stated that it WAS the IRS IGs testimony, you can google it for yourself.

    Now where's YOUR proof that the IRS "confessed" to targeting conservatives? Because what the IRS "confessed" to was targeting groups with names that appeared to be political. They NEVER "confessed" to targeting a party or ideology.

    So where's YOUR PROOF?! Who? When? And Where? I give FACTS that can be substantiated. YOU give wild accusations.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, Michale, you seem impressed by one of the most incoherent rants on the economy that I've ever seen!

    Never claimed to be "impressed"... I merely said that it makes sense.. It's logical and reasonable..

    But you, Michale, and this clown you cite, firmly believe that the problem is all the assistance the poor get, and its just WRONG to expect the wealthy pay more taxes. The RICH are ENTITLED to KEEP the money THEY have. While people who merely EARN their money MUST PAY TAXES.--And if they don't have enough to live on after that--well, they should have been born RICH!

    I think the point that the author was trying to make is that taxing the rich WON'T solve any problems. It will simply delay the inevitable..

    If we taxed the rich at 100%, that would only be enough money to keep things running for a few months at best...

    "Well fine!!! But the rich will keep making money and we can continue to tax them" is the inevitable response for the No-Information Liberal/Progressive...

    But if the rich can't RETAIN their wealth, where is their incentive to continue to GENERATE that wealth that the N-IL/P (No-Information Liberal/Progressive) wants to tax at 100%???

    "Oh.. uh... well, gee whiz" says the N-IL/P.. "Didn't think of that."

    To put it into an easy-to-understand context.. What's the solution when you have a teenager whose spending is out of control??

    Is the solution to simply give him/her more money??

    Of course not. That simply feeds the problem and eventually the teenager will crash and burn because they have already burned thru all the money...

    THAT is the point that the author is trying to make.

    As I said. Reasonable. Logical... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've given you the cites for the IGs testimony and you've ignored them. I've very clearly stated that it WAS the IRS IGs testimony, you can google it for yourself.

    I want the cite where the IRS IG claims that the IRS did not target conservatives..

    It should prove quite illuminating since the IRS itself *CONFESSED* to targeting Conservatives..

    This confession came AFTER the IRS lied to Congress and said that the IRS wasn't targeting conservatives...

    Now where's YOUR proof that the IRS "confessed" to targeting conservatives? Because what the IRS "confessed" to was targeting groups with names that appeared to be political. They NEVER "confessed" to targeting a party or ideology.

    WOW.. Now you are REALLY reaching.... :D I must really have you on the ropes..

    That's one of the finest tap dances you have ever done. And THAT is saying a lot..

    You can "sematicize" it any way you want. But the IRS targeted Conservatives..

    This is a proven fact that only YOU deny....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups

    Who are you going to believe??

    The facts??

    Or your own hysterical ideological enslavement??

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And the fact that NO ONE here in Weigantia (sans your's truly) disputes these outlandish fantasies would seem to indicate that ya'all agree with them...

    You have a tendency toward making too many assumptions - about everyone and everything.

    While I still read almost everything posted here - though I'm steadily losing interest in even that - it has never been my practice to waste time, yours or mine, responding to nonsense comments ... which, I am so sorry to say, have become pervasive here.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If you can say that America has fans, I'm certainly one of them.

    Are you?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCOTUS Live Blog is up for anyone interested..

    http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have a tendency toward making too many assumptions - about everyone and everything.

    I just got where the logic takes me..

    My "outlandish" comments usually garner a dearth of responses...

    So, when other REALLY outlandish comments are made and uncommented upon, the only logical conclusion is that those comments are agreed with...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

    :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you can say that America has fans, I'm certainly one of them.

    Are you?

    Absotively and posilutely...

    But our leaders suck.... Plain and simple...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I wouldn't use logic to describe your antics around here but, that's just me.

    As a citizen of the world who is interested in America's global leadership role, it's hard for me to separate America from its leaders, good and bad.

    Your blanket statement about the state of American leadership is ultimately, I think, a wholly defeatist perspective and one that I refuse to entertain.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    s a citizen of the world who is interested in America's global leadership role, it's hard for me to separate America from its leaders, good and bad.

    America is her people.

    NOT her leaders...

    Some leaders have represented the best of the American people..

    Our current batch of leaders represent the worst of the American people..

    But America is not her leaders..

    America is her people..

    It's really that simple..

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unions Lose In Harris v Quinn

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ruling is 5-4 with all liberal judges supporting the unions..

    Color me shocked... {/sarcasm>

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Leaders are people, too, Michale. :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCOTUS slaps down Obama again!!! :D

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What role have unions played in America, Michale?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leaders are people, too, Michale. :)

    Intellectually, I know that...

    But viscerally.....

    Well, let's just say that MANY leaders don't deserve to be considered as "people"... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    What role have unions played in America, Michale?

    A great one..

    But their time is past...

    Now they are a drain.. A blood-sucking bureaucracy that ONLY exists to serve itself...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Many people don't deserve the leadership positions they enjoy but, you can only blame the rest of the people for that!

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haven't gotten the official word from SCOTUS on Hobby Lobby yet...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many people don't deserve the leadership positions they enjoy but, you can only blame the rest of the people for that!

    I can blame the people for electing poor leaders..

    But I blame the leaders for being poor leaders...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But their time is past...

    I suppose there is some truth to that.

    But, again, it comes down to competent leadership of the unions and taking care of people in a responsible manner.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can blame the people for electing poor leaders..But I blame the leaders for being poor leaders...

    That makes a lot of sense and is, dare I say, quite logical.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCOTUS slaps down Obama...

    The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.
    by Amy Howe 10:17 AM

    RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.
    by Amy Howe 10:17 AM

    Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.
    - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.m6XdgZW2.dpuf

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    That makes a lot of sense and is, dare I say, quite logical.

    See!??

    I *AM* logical!! :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, again, it comes down to competent leadership of the unions and taking care of people in a responsible manner.

    If Unions demonstrated that THAT was their goal, then I likely wouldn't have a problem with it.

    But Unions today exist SOLELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY to further the Union...

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, the SCOTUS has ruled that "Close Held" (Family Owned) Corporations are "people" insofar as their religious beliefs are concerned..

    That a CH/FO Corporation CAN have a "religion" and cannot be forced to take actions that would violate that religion...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    LewDan wrote:

    You see Michale, the thing about FACTS is that they can be verified.

    Your IRS lies are based on incomplete, outdated information you conveniently cherry-pick. They are NOT true. The IRS "apology" was based on false information.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/18/irs-tea-party-hearing/2551339/

    The IRS IG testified in July of 2013 that Conservatives were NOT targeted That his May testimony was inaccurate.--So, of course. You cite MAY 2013 pieces citing info proven to be UNTRUE.

    I'll grant that your apology claim was a fact. It simply happens to be an UNTRUE fact.--As YOU were well aware. As I've ALREADY informed you REPEATEDLY.

    You, however, simply prefer to lie.

  63. [63] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Scotus once again demonstrates its biases and illegitimacy.

    Forcing GOVERNMENT to impose peoples religious beliefs on employees is EXACTLY what the Constitution outlaws!

    Hobby Lobby was neither ordered to provide abortion services nor to consume them. It was ordered to negotiate for coverage from third parties on behalf of its EMPLOYEES. Its the EMPLOYEES money being spent. And its the EMPLOYEES who would receive the services.

    This is like the bakery who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Hobby Lobby wants to engage in business with the public, but with the right to discriminate against anyone in the public it chooses.

    And the Conservatives in SCOTUS, once again ignore the Constitution in order to impose right-wing Christian prejudice, undercut the laws passed by Congress, and impose their views of what the law SHOULD be instead of doing their duty to enforce the laws enacted by the Congress and mandated by the Constitution.--This farcical court will keep right on shredding the Constitution until the biases unethical wingers on it are impeached.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, basically, AFTER the IRS confessed that they had inappropriately targeted Conservative groups, ALL OF THE SUDDEN magical documents were provided to the IRS IG...

    Documents that NO ONE has seen and have NOT been verified...

    So, on the one hand, we have the FACT that has been WIDELY reported that the IRS did in fact inappropriately and then we have you picking up an obscure reference to some fantasy documents that "prove" that Obama's IRS LIED when it claimed it targeted Conservative groups inappropriately..

    Is THAT the story you are running with?? :D

    REALLY????

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    LewDan wrote:

    No, Michale,

    After the IG testified that the IRS targeted Conservatives, and after the IRS and Whitehous apologized based on that testimony, the IG claims to have not had all the information. And Republicans are not only uninterested in how the IG could possibly be so incompetent, they, like you, are still insisting his previous false statements are true. Either he'd credible or not. You can't have it both ways. Claiming he's credible ONLY when he says what YOU want to believe!

    They, and you, are even doubling down with the fantasy that Lerner's lost emails must be a conspiracy to cover-up the "targeting" the evidence never happened. You claim you can "infer" there's a conspiracy to cover-up in spite of there being no evidence of targeting TO "cover-up!"

    But you see no reason to believe there's a conspiracy when the IG provides false testimony to Congress and the claims that he determined Conservatives were "targeted" WITHOUT ever investigating how Progressive applications were handled?! No evidence of conspiracy when he holds private Republican-only meetings? For all he knew only Conservatives were "targeted" because only Conservatives applied for exemptions! You simply CANNOT come to the conclusion he claims to have held simply because you hadn't received all the data. As HE claims. No competent investigator absent data on anyone else would just assume that there were applications by other groups but that they were handled differently. Without even bothering to test that hypothesis by investigating exactly HOW other applications were processed?

    The whole IRS "scandal" stinks all right. But NOT because of the way that the IRS handled applications! It stinks of a set-up, not a cover-up!

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    You keep believing that LD...

    Gods know I can't change your mind..

    But those beliefs are right up there on the BS scale with "Obama didn't lie" and "No policies were cancelled"...

    It's funny... Obama apologized for both those things as well...

    But, according to you, they never happened...

    Don't tell me, let me guess.

    Obama's apology never happened either, right?? :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Obama's apologies are not admissions of wrongdoing. Obama's JOB is to respond to the concerns of the American people. Whether they are accurate, true, it even rational, is beside the point.

    That's why, for example, Obama assured the American people that in spite of the lies Republicans were telling Obamacare did NOT mean Obama was taking over the the healthcare industry and deciding what peoples coverage would be.--Didn't work, of course, because Republicans claimed millions of policies were cancelled because Obama ordered it. Since Obama had taken over healthcare, so the claimed, obviously everything was Obama's fault. And, just as "obviously," Obama "lied" because what Obama actually SAID, what the LAW actually SAID, what actually happened, didn't mean a thing since Conservatives, and the media, chose to continue endorsing Republican lies.

    The difference between Obama and Republicans is that, unlike Republicans, Obama does his job instead of just trying to position himself to create political propaganda for the next election.

    Republicans, like spoiled two year-olds don't want to allow government to do ANYTHING unless THEY get to run it. So Republicans aren't interested in doing a thing EXCEPT trying to campaign for the next election.

    So, yeah, Obama apologizes and accepts responsibility because THAT'S HIS JOB. He even continues to pointlessly try to work with the Republicans.--Because its his job. It does NOT mean that Obama is personally the cause of everything he must apologize for. THAT little fantasy is yet ANOTHER of your usual lies.

  68. [68] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Accepting personal responsibility isn't an admission if guilt, Michale. Its called "leadership."

    At some point in your life you may have heard of the term.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Accepting personal responsibility isn't an admission if guilt, Michale. Its called "leadership."

    OK.. So we are agreed..

    Obama is responsible for his lying...

    For, if Obama didn't lie, he would have nothing to apologize for...

    Common ground...

    So, what do you think about the SCOTUS slapping Obama's wee-wee over recess appointments and TrainWreckCare??

    Pretty telling, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pretty telling, iddn't it.. :D

    I mean, 2/3rds of the government of this country think that Obama is out of control and needs to be reigned in and slapped down...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

    Bwwhahahahahahahahahaha

    So much for "science", eh??? :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wow ... I just have to say that Hobby Lobby decision is a mess.

    It looks like the Roberts court is giving up all pretenses of objectivity.

    "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." - Justice Ginsberg

    Another blow to freedom in the good 'ole USA.

    -David

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    200 MORE combat troops to Iraq...

    In ADDITION to the 300 SF troops already sent..

    Way ta go, Obama!!!!!

    Didn't think Obama had it in him to give a big hearty middle finger to his base....

    Good job, CnC...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another blow to freedom in the good 'ole USA.

    Actually, it's a BOOST for freedom...

    Business owners can run their business as their beliefs and integrity dictates..

    NOT as their government dictates..

    Let the Free Market work...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    It looks like the Roberts court is giving up all pretenses of objectivity.

    And yet, over 66% of the decisions made this term were unanimous...

    Kinda kills yer theory, eh?? :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, over 66% of the decisions made this term were unanimous...

    For the record, that's the best record the SCOTUS has had in over a century....

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    LewDan wrote:

    How people choose to spend their salaries, Michale, isn't up to their employer. Isn't dependent on the "free market." What the compensation people earn for their labor is spent on is NOBODYS business but the employee's. Businesses don't even get a vote, much less a veto!--You appear to confuse fascism with "freedom."

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Actually, it's a BOOST for freedom...

    So all I have to do is say I believe in some religion and I can disobey any law I want?

    I can't wait to see the parade of nut jobs that use this as a precedent.

    Yay freedom*!!!

    -David

    *Freedom does not apply if you're a woman, an employee of Hobby Lobby, or someone who disagrees with the religious views of Hobby Lobby.

  79. [79] 
    LewDan wrote:

    And what, exactly, is good about unanimous decisions? You believe SCOTUS is, for some reason, incapable of being unanimously wrong? Repeatedly?

    Once again you demonstrate your total lack of understanding of the concept of logic.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    So all I have to do is say I believe in some religion and I can disobey any law I want?

    No.. You have to SINCERELY believe in those freedoms..

    Ya know.. Sincerity??

    Something Democrats sincerely seem to lack...

    And what, exactly, is good about unanimous decisions? You believe SCOTUS is, for some reason, incapable of being unanimously wrong? Repeatedly?

    Funny how you ONLY think the SCOTUS is wrong when they go against your messiah..

    Yea... NO agenda there, eh?? :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You have to SINCERELY believe in those freedoms.

    Hmmm ... Every cult member ever was sincere about their beliefs.

    So there's some kind of sincerity test ... who determines what's sincere and what's not? Why is one religion better than another?

    I guess we'll find out when all the "sincere" nuts test out this precedent.

    *sigh*

    I believe freedom involves the rights of others. Not just the rights of certain religious groups who claim that somehow they are more "sincere" (in other words, better) than everyone else.

    Let's be honest. Their shit stinks the same as everyone else's. No matter how self righteous or "sincere" they claim to be.

    I'm kinda surprised by you on this one, Michale. Didn't realize you were so religious.

    Freedom took a big step backwards today.

    Something Democrats sincerely seem to lack.

    Really? How so?

    -David

  82. [82] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Btw, on that Martin Armstrong post. I think he's right that something's going to have to give.

    I completely agree with him that the problem is that government is not being run for the common good anymore.

    It's being run for special interests.

    Where I disagree with him is that he seems to think the solution is getting rid of government. He wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I want to get rid of the corruption.

    Our government used to be the idol of the free world with its checks and balances. The problem is that corporations figured out how to bypass these checks and balances.

    The question I would ask is, why do corporations want to get rid of government? Why have they fought this fight for the last 40 years?

    What are they gaining and what are we, the people, losing?

    The answer is, they gain cheap labor and they've cut their dues to our country. We lose wages and services and our country is being sold off bit by bit.

    Here's the other odd part about Martin's rant. He claims that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the final straw. Here, he's right.

    But how would Glass-Steagall ever get reinstated without government?

    In other words, this guy makes no sense. First, he claims we were right to have government regulation, then he wants to get rid of government.

    Government isn't the problem. It's the corruption of government.

    I believe we need to get rid of the corruption and return the government to the people (democracy!).

    -David

  83. [83] 
    LewDan wrote:

    David,

    America's reputation as the pillar of democracy has always been a myth. Government corruption was instituted before the Constitution was even written. Slave owners were guaranteed the right to own slaves for at least another fifty years under a Constitutional compromise in order to win the support of the rich support for the Constitution.

    America has a LONG history of selling out peoples individual rights and freedoms to placate the interests, and greed, of the wealthy. The problem isn't that we've somehow strayed from the true way. Its that we've cultivated an astounding ability to both live in denial and ignore the plight of others that's now hurting us as well.

    America's frequent total disregard for the rights and freedoms of people only becomes an issue when it hits a little too close to home. Government is certainly no more corrupt than its always been. And certain far LESS corrupt than its often been!

    People only think its more corrupt, and more of a problem, because they fear the corruption is now affecting THEM, instead of just some insignificant people. Not that government is more corrupt.

    Allow me to suggest that the solution isn't just less corruption, its less apathy and selfish shortsighted indifference to others. That is, after all, what CAUSES the corruption, and it always has been.

    We might begin by facing reality for a change instead of pretending America has always been a bastion of individual freedom and democracy--until just recently.

    It may be just recently for YOU, but for many of us... Not so much.

  84. [84] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'm well aware of our country's history, LD. If somehow I offended you or came off as apathetic, please let me know what it was in my post at which you took offense.

    Ok, yeah. Sure. You're right. It's been going on for much longer than 40 years.

    Great. You win.

    What leads you to think that I'm being selfish and shortsighted though?

    If cooperation on less corruption requires me to admit that we've never been the pillar of democracy I desire, than that's easy to do as it's not hard to do.

    It's also easy for me to agree that less apathy and shortsighted indifference to others is a good thing though I feel somewhat accused (confused?) by this comment.

    I don't wish to fight you as I think we believe in the same things. But I'm going to be honest, my first reaction was where does this guy get off with the self-righteousness?

    Can we at least agree that more democracy and less corruption would be a good thing? Aren't we fighting for the same thing?

    Or do you just care about being more "right"? I mean we can fight with each other if you want. This doesn't seem very productive to me, however.

    Peace.

    -David

  85. [85] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Btw, no need to YELL.

    I can hear you-or rather read you-just fine.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I believe freedom involves the rights of others.

    Exactly...

    NOT just the rights of the people who believe as you do..

    This ruling upheld the rights of the people to run their business as they see fit..

    I'm kinda surprised by you on this one, Michale. Didn't realize you were so religious.

    I am kinda surprised myself.

    But then I realized that this isn't about religion..

    It's about, as you say, the rights of others to believe as they want to believe and to run their lives and their businesses according to their beliefs..

    Ya know. That old hokey saying about not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it??

    Democrats seem to have forgotten that..

    I want to get rid of the corruption.

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

    LD,

    We might begin by facing reality for a change instead of pretending America has always been a bastion of individual freedom and democracy--until just recently.

    It may be just recently for YOU, but for many of us... Not so much.

    Oh give me a break and cry me a river...

    You know, LD.. There will come a time, hopefully in the not so distant future, where the races are going to have to give up on their victim status and will have to own up to the responsibilities of true equality...

    In short, races can only play the victim for so long before other races get sick and tired of it..

    If you hate this country so much, don't let the door hit you on the backside on yer way out...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    BOY'S DEATH HIGHLIGHTS DANGER OF BORDER CROSSINGS
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION_OVERLOAD_CHILD_DEATH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-19-03-51

    Obama must be so proud of himself.. :^/

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    David, you should like this...

    In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.

    It's not about Right vs Left. It's not about Democrats vs Republicans..

    It's about a POTUS who can't accept the word "NO" from the other two equal portions of our government..

    It's about a child who has to have everything HIS way without ANY thought to the consequences of his lawless actions...

    The Legislative third of our government has told Obama "NO"...

    The Judicial third of our government has told Obama "NO"...

    You would THINK that any sane executive would step back and say, "Maybe it's me..."

    But Obama's ego is simply too big a part of his life for such useful (to the country) self-examination..

    Obama is always right. It's everyone else who is wrong...

    2017 can't come fast enough....

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    I want to get rid of the corruption.

    Then the solution is clear.

    Don't give the government MORE power...

    If you want to have less corruption, then take power AWAY from the government and give it to the people...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe we need to get rid of the corruption and return the government to the people (democracy!).

    I guess I need to read more closely, eh? :D

    So, we are in agreement.. We need to take power away from the government and give it to the people..

    This will be a win/win because it will mean LESS corruption from the government and more freedom/liberty for the people..

    Common ground.. A wonderful thing... :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/obama-to-use-executive-action-to-bolster-border-enforcement.html?_r=0

    Yea...

    Last time Obama said he was going to "fix" our Immigration system, he gave us DACA which directly lead to the catastrophe that is occurring on our southern border...

    I don't know if this country can handle more Obama "fixes"....

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/obama-to-use-executive-action-to-bolster-border-enforcement.html?_r=0

    Yea...

    Last time Obama said he was going to "fix" our Immigration system, he gave us DACA which directly lead to the catastrophe that is occurring on our southern border...

    I don't know if this country can handle more Obama "fixes"....

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we are in agreement.. We need to take power away from the government and give it to the people..

    Which is EXACTLY what the SCOTUS/Hobby Lobby ruling did..

    It take power away from Obama's power-mad administration and gave it back to the people. In this case, the business owners who just want to run their business in accordance with their beliefs...

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know David...

    Corporations are FOR Immigration Amnesty for the EXACT same reasons you rail against corporations..

    So, by supporting Immigration Amnesty and not Immigration Reform, you are actually SUPPORTING the very corporations that you are railing against..

    Where's the logic???

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    If yer still around in this commentary, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on my Obama Impeachment analysis, comment #27...

    There are two further salient points that would make an Obama Impeachment viable whereas the Clinton Impeachment was not..

    1. Obama's poll numbers are low 40s and on the way down.. Clinton's poll numbers were at low 60s and moving up. Impeaching a popular POTUS is infinitely harder than impeaching an unpopular POTUS who, for all intents and purposes, has received a vote of NO CONFIDENCE from the American People.

    2. Clinton's impeachment was because of perjury and obstruction of justice.. Crimes that really didn't affect Joe and Jane SixPack.. Obama's crimes are affecting a wide swath of Joes and Janes across the country...

    For these reasons and so many more, I can almost guarantee that the GOP will be VERY unlikely to pay a political price for impeaching Obama...

    Whether Obama is actually convicted and removed from office?? That's a little less sure.. It will defend on several factors..

    If you ARE interested in pursuing this topic, I would love to hear your thoughts on the socio-racial effects of an Obama impeachment....

    Watt's style rioting?? That would be my guess...

    Anywho.... If ya get a free second... :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, we are in agreement.. We need to take power away from the government and give it to the people.

    In a democracy, people are the government. The problem, as LD points out, is that we're far from a democracy.

    By destroying the government, you take power away from people.

    Getting rid of government would only leave the people responsible for the corruption (corporate special interests) in charge.

    Don't worry though. Corporate interests will never let the libertarian dream happen though. They need the police as enforcers for when people fight back.

    Glass-Steagall, as the person in your article mentions, is a great example of good government.

    Your author is exactly right that this is the type of thing we need. Real laws to ensure a working economy.

    As history has demonstrated, markets don't regulate themselves. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have see many more collapses before we free ourselves from this propaganda.

    Corporations are FOR Immigration Amnesty for the EXACT same reasons you rail against corporations.

    Why is that? Btw, "rail against corporations". Cut it out w/ the spin. I point out the obvious: what corporations are interested in is cheap labor and paying less to our country (or any country for that matter).

    -David

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    By destroying the government, you take power away from people.

    No one is talking about destroying.. It's a straw man argument that the Left makes up so they can knock it down.

    Like the "War On Women" or "Anyone who disputes climate change is a denier" and other garbage like that.

    Government has it's place.. The problem is ya'all believe that the government should control more and more.. That kind of control then, in turn, leads to the corruption that ya'all CLAIM to be against..

    A smaller government with LESS power is LESS inclined to be corrupt...

    Simple logic..

    Glass-Steagall, as the person in your article mentions, is a great example of good government.

    And who got rid of it??

    Democrats...

    You prove my point for me.

    Government was made bigger and more controlling. Corruption increased...

    Why is that? Btw, "rail against corporations". Cut it out w/ the spin.

    Uh... This is the FTP By definition, it's a "spin zone" :D

    I point out the obvious: what corporations are interested in is cheap labor and paying less to our country (or any country for that matter).

    And Immigration Amnesty will give those corporations the VERY access to that cheap labor..

    Immigration REFORM, on the other hand, will LESSEN the control of corporations and make them pay workers more...

    So, if it's the middle class you are fighting for, then you should be fighting on my side. The side of Immigration REFORM.. Not Immigration Amnesty...

    If Obama's Amnesty program gets approved WHO do you think is going to pay the biggest price???

    The mid to lower income people. The minorities whose job market is ALREADY brutal is going to have millions and millions of new workers thrown into that very same job pool...

    How can ANYONE who claims to be for middle class Americans can support Immigration Amnesty is really beyond me...

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, if you are for less corruption in government, then you MUST be for less government..

    And if you are for LESS government, then that makes you......

    A REPUBLICAN!!!!

    :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a great idea!!! It will solve the southern border debacle completely and will be a HUGE PR boost for Democrats!!

    Every Democrat in the country will take charge of 3 illegal immigrants. They will feed, clothe and shelter those immigrants and provide for their schooling, their medical care and any other needs.

    Awesome idea!!!

    Obama should implement this immediately...

    Wonder how many volunteers he would get??

    I can bet.....

    NONE.... ZERO..... ZILCH.... NADA.....

    The Left talks a great game..

    But only when it's someone else who has to pay the bills...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No one is talking about destroying.

    Except that guy in the article you posted.

    Government was made bigger and more controlling.

    By getting rid of Glass-Steagall regulations?

    God bless 'ya, Michale. I like you but sometimes you get caught up in your Republican zeal and hatred of "liburals".

    Corruption increased...

    Yes. Because there was less government. Because we got rid of the regulations limiting corporate power.

    Sorry, Michale. I'm not buying the war against gub'ment. It's the same war corporate special interest groups have been selling since the '80s.

    -David

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except that guy in the article you posted.

    OK, no one SERIOUS is talking about SERIOUSLY destroying the government.

    Each side has crackpots. The minute we start taking the crackpots serious, then there is nothing worth saving...

    God bless 'ya, Michale. I like you but sometimes you get caught up in your Republican zeal and hatred of "liburals".

    In my defense, I hate Republicans too... :D I just hate "liberuls" because they are so damn hypocritical about things..

    Yes. Because there was less government. Because we got rid of the regulations limiting corporate power.

    So creating MORE government bureaucracies with more power over people's everyday lives is the way to create LESS corruption???

    As we have seen, this is simply not accurate... The VA debacle alone PROVES beyond ANY doubt that MORE GOVERNMENT = MORE CORRUPTION...

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In my defense, I hate Republicans too... :D I just hate "liberuls" because they are so damn hypocritical about things.

    Yeah, I know. I'm not really fond of either either.

    It's why I feel that somehow any breakthrough is gonna have to come in some other way, shape, or form.

    There's a couple folks who are doing some interesting things in this area. Lawrence Lessig has the best analysis of the corruption in Washington I've seen. Republic, Lost is his book.

    This is him writing in The Atlantic (for free): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/campaign-finance-and-the-nihilist-politics-of-resignation/360437/

    His goal is to try to get people into office who will pledge to fight against corruption. I don't know as I agree with his methods, but I do agree with the idea that we're going to need to try some different things.

    Nick Hanauer is another interesting case. He's a member of the .01% who makes some good business arguments.

    So creating MORE government bureaucracies with more power over people's everyday lives is the way to create LESS corruption?

    Well, I wouldn't phrase it that way. But in the case of Glass-Steagall, these were good regulations that kept the financial industry in check for over 50 years. Less than 8 years after we got rid of them, we crashed the entire economy.

    I hate bureaucracy. Especially when it's pointless.

    What we shouldn't be doing, however, is calling good rules "bureaucracy" and getting rid of them.

    If it truly is bureaucracy, I'm all for getting rid of it. However, I also know that markets don't regulate themselves and there's a lot of good done by the public sector. At least there used to be *sigh*.

    Interestingly enough, one of the side effects of the war on government is that as more and more "government haters" are elected to office, government becomes increasingly incompetent. It would be like hiring someone into your company who hates your company and wants to bring it down from within.

    If we elect people whose incentive is to f*ck up government, we shouldn't be surprised when we get a f*cked up government. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I'm ok with people who hate bureaucracy and want to reduce it when it makes sense. But we shouldn't be reducing government just to reduce government.

    Remember, government is "we the people".

    And if we get rid of something and it f*cks up our country, maybe we should put it back.

    -David

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    His goal is to try to get people into office who will pledge to fight against corruption. I don't know as I agree with his methods, but I do agree with the idea that we're going to need to try some different things.

    But therein lies the problem..

    You put people in power and then that power corrupts them...

    It seems to me that reducing the power reduces the chance for corruption.

    Is that not logical???

    Of course, you reduce the power you also reduce their effectiveness...

    The key is to give them JUST enough power to do their jobs AS IT IS DESIGNED but no more..

    THAT is the EXACT problem that the SCOTUS addressed in their recent rulings.. Too much power is being consolidated into the hands of too few people...

    Well, I wouldn't phrase it that way. But in the case of Glass-Steagall, these were good regulations that kept the financial industry in check for over 50 years. Less than 8 years after we got rid of them, we crashed the entire economy.

    At the risk of reducing this to a RvL/DvR argument, it was the Democrats who got rid of Glass-Steagall...

    THEY broke the country..

    Your argument to put them back in power thus makes no sense...

    Remember, government is "we the people".

    Yes it is... And, how has that been going the last 6 years???

    And if we get rid of something and it f*cks up our country, maybe we should put it back.

    Agreed... So, why haven't we??? After 2008, if it is so obvious that it was losing Glass-Steagall that fraked things up, why hasn't our government re-installed the legislation??

    Because the status quo is to the GOVERNMENT'S (Right *AND* Left) benefit...

    It's not a Right vs Left issue.

    It's a right vs wrong issue...

    It's time for a change in leadership...

    We just need to agree who is best to lead that change...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It seems to me that reducing the power reduces the chance for corruption.

    I hate to say it but I don't think size has anything to do with it. Heheh.

    A small, corrupt government is still a corrupt government.

    Shit. We've been reducing government since Reagan. And it's only gotten more corrupt.

    The key is to give them JUST enough power to do their jobs AS IT IS DESIGNED but no more.

    I think the key is getting people who aren't corrupt. And changing the incentives.

    At the risk of reducing this to a RvL/DvR argument, it was the Democrats who got rid of Glass-Steagall.

    Fair enough. At least Clinton signed it. What you're leaving out are the Republicans who passed the repeal through Congress and supported it.

    It's time for a change in leadership.

    I would buy this if we could put someone in place who would be better. And if we could replace Congress with less corrupt people.

    All of the options I've seen so far won't make anything better.

    I am interested if you hear any good ideas from the conservative side though. I do appreciate the different perspectives.

    -David

  105. [105] 
    LewDan wrote:

    David,

    Nothing you said offended me. My point is that our government is representative. Politicians aren't particularly corrupt. They fairly represent the attitudes of the people who elect them.

    I'm simply saying you can't solve a problem, any problem, until you first identify just what the problem is. As long as we elect people because we think that they will promote our interests over those of others we will have "corruption." Because"corruption" is nothing more than people who promote their own interests over the interests of others.

    We think we have influence over politicians because if they don't do what we want we'll refuse to fund their campaigns and vote them out of office. We require politicians who are sensitive to their own interests. We require politicians who are responsive to campaign contributors.

    Railing against corrupt politicians won't solve our problems. Because it isn't the politicians who are corrupt. Its the electorate.

    For example, the electorate bought into supply-side economics. They bought into the notion that destroying unions would save them money. By reducing salaries and saving companies money. Well salaries have been reduced. The electorate's salaries. (Just who's salaries did anyone think would be reduced?) Money has been saved. And profits have soared. That those savings and profits have come out of the pockets of the electorate that thought it could save money by forcing others to work for less, wasn't corruption. It was the democratic process. It was thinking we could profit by exploiting others.

    Cantor's loss was a reminder that people don't have to vote for the candidate with all the money. The money in politics buy influence because voters are easily manipulated by their selfishness, greed, shortsightedness, and indifference to others.

    I apologize if I gave the impression I was saying that you are selfish, shortsighted, or apathetic. That wasn't my intent. I was referring to all of us. Because the corruption that's giving us difficulties is society's, not politicians'.

    We don't need to restore representative government, we need to realize that it is representative, and stop picking scapegoats instead of taking responsibility for dealing with our problems. It isn't that the people we elect betray our trust, its that the things we elect them to do are ultimately counterproductive and damaging. Capitalism isn't just about competition. It requires cooperation as well.

    We need to learn that crossing the line from profiting to exploiting will cost us rather than benefit us. We need to stop being corrupt to end corruption.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You know, it's not, you know, the imperial presidency or no laws are broken."
    -President Barack Obama

    Nixon said something quite similar...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/01/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/

    Ahhhhh The "freedom loving" Obama Administration....

    Any red lines here???

    No!??

    REALLY?????

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am interested if you hear any good ideas from the conservative side though. I do appreciate the different perspectives.

    Not really... Since I ain't conservative I can't speak to their ideas, good or otherwise.. :D

    I *CAN* give you some common sense ideas borne from a political agnostic..

    Could you be specific on what problems you are looking to solve??

    One overall common sense idea is to remind Obama and the Democrats that they work for ALL Americans.

    Not just the Americans who voted for them... Not just the Americans who agree with them..

    Obama and the Democrats have seem to have forgotten that...

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Good to hear you weren't offended, LD. I'm a fan of your posts and I guess that's why I took it personally.

    I agree with your assessment of the electorate though I struggle with the word "corruption" when it comes to people. Why? Because I've found that most people genuinely believe that they're doing the right thing. That they are acting morally. Even though I may fundamentally disagree with some of their beliefs.

    This may seem like splitting hairs but I've found it makes a big difference in approach. Mostly I've learned to talk more about my values and beliefs.

    When it comes to politicians, however, the people we elect do betray our trusts. It's not necessarily that these politicians are bad, but they live in an insane world. A world where they are judged on how much money they raise rather than on what they do for the general public.

    Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page just published a new study showing that politicians do indeed respond more to wealthy individuals and organized business groups.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/24/gilens_and_page_find_that_rich_americans_rule_politics_but_despair_the_fact.html

    Glass-Steagall is repealed under Clinton. Drug companies gain retail prices for wholesale purchases under George Bush’s prescription drug plan. The same requirement remains under the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Barack Obama. The Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy. NAFTA. Clinton's welfare reform.

    If politicians don't appease the special interests, the special interests spend millions to hundreds of millions making life miserable.

    What's the answer?

    That's the big question, isn't it? Maybe it is a less "corrupt" electorate. Who believes they're being corrupt though? Everyone I know thinks they're doing the right thing.

    Until our two "sides"(I'll put this in quotes because I believe these sides are largely false) or enough people from the two "sides" can come together to work towards a common goal, we're largely going to live with a divide-and-conquer mess.

    I would like to see this common goal be the elimination of special interest influence on our government. However it's accomplished.

    -David

  110. [110] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, I find the David Brat win encouraging too.

    It shows what can happen when people stand up and reject the monied interests.

    One easy way to stand up and influence government and our representatives is to become a precinct/ward chair for one of the parties.

    It's not hard to do and I can now say that I'm a precinct captain for the Dem party in our county. The precinct chairs determine who is going to run for the different parties.

  111. [111] 
    LewDan wrote:

    David,

    I agree "corrupt" isn't really accurate when talking about the electorate. And I agree that most people sincerely believe they're doing the right thing with their vote.

    But in my experience people almost always think they're doing the right thing when they are doing the wrong thing. Which is why I blame ignorance, not corruption. And why I think its important to recognize the electorate is the real problem, not corrupt politicians.

    Six hundred plus congress-critters is enough to mitigate a few bad actors. And education turns people trying to do the right thing doing the wrong thing into people trying to do the right thing doing the right thing.--Marriage equality being a recent example.

    I also agree that more people actively engaging in the political process is always a good thing.--Whatever party they choose. Much as I disagree with Conservatives I think they're elevating important issues so they can no longer be ignored. Issues that for far too long have been ignored. Though the issues I think important aren't the ones they think important! Just as how I think issues should be resolved definitely isn't how they think they should be resolved.

    Personally, I started as a poll-watcher for Carter. But for many years now I've been an election judge. Stomping around town knocking on doors is a younger persons game! But I'm glad to hear you're doing it, and encouraging others to participate as well.

  112. [112] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Idunno, LD. In poll after poll, on issue after issue, I see the American people still getting it right despite all the misinformation.

    On education, on foreign policy, on the economy, on immigration, on voting rights, on equality, etc, etc.

    Yet our elected officials, over and over, continue to get it wrong. They continue to push for school privatization (including prominent Dems like Rahm, Obama, and Steve Beshear from Kentucky). They put industry lobbyists in charge of government agencies responsible for regulating industry (Tom Wheeler, the most egregious example). They block immigration reform. They shut down the government over an issue as trivial as raising the debt ceiling. They push for war. They fail to fix "too big to fail" instead choosing half-ass measures recommended by (any guesses?) financial industry insiders. They fight for new, bigger trade agreements with Asia. I could go on.

    Did you read the Gilens and Page study? They examined nearly 1800 issues from 1981 to 2002 in which a national survey asked a favor/oppose question about the issue. This is how they assessed the public's influence on policy.

    They conclude:

    "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized
    groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government
    policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent
    influence."

    In other words, the public gets it right, Congress gets it wrong and fights for special interests anyways. Again and again.

    This leads me to think it's much more than a few bad actors.

    This leads me to question the idea that the majority of Americans are "low information" voters and are simply misinformed.

    This leads me to believe we don't live in a representational democracy where our elected leaders follow the will of the people who elect them.

    Perhaps this is why so many fight against democracy?

    Me personally, I think the reason is much more visceral than that. I think the reason is that when it comes right down to it, many people believe that, if allowed to make decisions, the "masses" are too stupid to make them correctly. In other words, we need elites to run government.

    It also, however, gives me hope that if we can actually achieve more democracy, that government would be much better run.

    Thoughts?

    -David

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    This leads me to question the idea that the majority of Americans are "low information" voters and are simply misinformed.

    There is a third possibility...

    The possibility exists that people AREN'T low information, NOR are they misinformed..

    They just believe things differently than you do..

    THAT's the trap ya'all fall into..

    You think that no one could POSSIBLY think something different and be right.

    So, if people DO think something different they are either low information people or they are lied to...

    Applying Occam's Razor, I would put forth that it is this third possibility that is the most likely of the three...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would put forth that it is this third possibility

    Get it?? Put FOURTH?? This THIRD?? Get it???

    tough room.... :^/

    :D

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    akadjian wrote:

    tough room.... :^/

    I laughed! *snort*

    They just believe things differently than you do.

    In some cases, yes. But the statistics seem to tell a different story. They say that by and large we agree much more with each other (and much less w/ corporate special interest groups) than maybe we think we do.

    In other words, we almost literally would be better off if we simply randomly chose people from the phone book as our elected representatives.

    I mean here and there there's going to be differences of opinion. In these cases, I believe your 3rd option. I can say a lot of things about you, Michale (as you can about me too, I'm sure ... heheh) but "low information" is not one of them. In fact, you frequently surprise me with how much you know about issues-even when we fundamentally disagree.

    It does however make me wonder if we aren't giving away many of the things we agree on while fighting over a relatively small number of things we disagree on.

    Just interesting.

    -David

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    tough room.... :^/

    I laughed! *snort*

    *chortle* :D

    I mean here and there there's going to be differences of opinion. In these cases, I believe your 3rd option. I can say a lot of things about you, Michale (as you can about me too, I'm sure ... heheh) but "low information" is not one of them.

    I would definitely agree with that sentiment and reciprocate the same sentiment...

    It does however make me wonder if we aren't giving away many of the things we agree on while fighting over a relatively small number of things we disagree on.

    Troo.. Very troo...

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    It does however make me wonder if we aren't giving away many of the things we agree on while fighting over a relatively small number of things we disagree on.

    I also have to wonder if the Left (AND the Right for that matter) are ALSO giving away their agenda in the interests of Party loyalty...

    Cutting off their noses to spite their face, so to speak..

    I elaborate more here:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/06/30/supreme-courts-lack-of-religious-diversity/

    Or WILL elaborate more once I actually put my thoughts to screen.. :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Btw ... a couple quick notes on immigration reform.

    The mid to lower income people. The minorities whose job market is ALREADY brutal is going to have millions and millions of new workers thrown into that very same job pool.

    Aren't they already in the job pool? You can't flood our country with people who are already here.

    From an economic perspective, it would actually help the average person because right now people are competing with those willing to work for far lower wages and benefits because of the threat of deportation.

    What it would change is several things:

    - Their situation. As citizens, we could no longer pay them less than minimum wage while threatening to kick them out of the country.
    - Taxes. Citizens pay taxes.
    - Attractiveness to labor. Many businesses seriously are struggling to find highly skilled workers. Immigration reform would make our country more attractive to highly skilled workers from other countries.

    Am I leaving anything out?

    You are right though that the U.S. Chamber supports immigration reform. Here's their position from their website:

    "America has had the opportunity to grow and thrive because we have attracted and welcomed the most talented and the hardest working people to our shores. The U.S. Chamber has collaborated with a variety of odd bedfellows including faith organizations, law enforcement, and ethnic groups to build a movement for commonsense immigration reform that strengthens border security, expands the number of visas for high- and lesser-skilled workers, makes improvements to the federal employment verification system, and provides an earned lawful status for the undocumented with no future bar to citizenship. The door to the American dream must always remain open."

    Here, I think the U.S. Chamber is actually trying to do the right thing. It is something, however, which I think would hurt many businesses in the short term (because they'd have to pay any illegal workforce more as a legal workforce).

    The Chamber might be interested in this issue because of their membership. Remember, there's a few very large companies who prop up the Chamber. They don't represent all business interests but typically the interests of these few large companies. One of the reasons they may support immigration reform is that these companies quite likely already "do the right" thing and don't employ those in the country illegally. In other words, it might help level the playing field for their most prominent members by eliminating an illegal competitive advantage some businesses currently hold when they hire illegally.

    It's an interesting question though. Am I missing any other reasons you can think of why the Chamber might support reform?

    -David

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aren't they already in the job pool? You can't flood our country with people who are already here.

    No.. I am talking about the 10s of millions who are PROJECTED to be here once Democrats get their Immigration Amnesty..

    We are seeing the results on the southern border right now..

    It's an interesting question though. Am I missing any other reasons you can think of why the Chamber might support reform?

    The corporate interests are not supporting reform. The corporate interests, including the Chamber, are supporting amnesty...

    We need Immigration REFORM.. Not Immigration Amnesty...

    Reform gives us Border Security first and foremost..

    Amnesty gives us what we are seeing at the southern border right now...

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    LewDan wrote:

    David,

    Polls may indicate that the public gets it right but their voting indicates they don't really care enough, which is where they get it wrong. Rightwing extremists have disproportionate influence because they vote for more than just the Presidency.

    When you've got thirty percent or so who are vocal and adamant, with forty or fifty percent who are silent and ambivalent, advocating for the extremist thirty percent is representative government. The majority who didn't care enough to voice an opinion are faithfully represented by politicians who don't care what those opinions may be. It isn't enough for the public to get it right in private polls. They have to show up and get it right at the polls.

    This latest primary I worked ninety percent of voters were over seventy! The vast majority were male, and Republican. Doesn't matter who selects the candidates when people don't care enough to vote. That's the reason presidential midterm elections favor the minority party. The majority can be depended upon not the to participate, while the minority actually cares who wins.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically enough, the bill stalled in the Senate is a lot closer to Immigration REFORM than we have seen in a long time....

    Howz THAT for irony?? :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, I find the David Brat win encouraging too.

    Perhaps in the long term... :D

    Killer of Immigration Reform Identified As David Brat
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/immigration-reform-killer-identified-david-brat.html

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    LewDan wrote:

    On immigration, the Chamber of Commerce position is in support of work visas because it gives employers coercive control over cheap imported laborers. Their version of immigration reform may eventually result in citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but immediately, and indefinitely it codifies businesses leverage over immigrant workers, making the new legal immigrants subject to the same old coercion. Though that coercion would now be legal.

    And the children flooding the border are not workers looking for jobs. Nor are they the result of Obama's policies. They're the result of desperate people being exploited by those falsely telling them there's an Obama policy that would provide for their children. It is not true, and Obama isn't responsible for the lies told by others.

    Just as the paranoid fantasy of tens of millions of immigrants flooding the country taking all the jobs is nonsense. If tens of millions of immigrants flood the country they'll need food, clothes, housing, transportation..., creating hundreds of millions more of jobs. Jobs are not zero sum. That's why immigration fuels economies rather than draining them.

    More workers means more productivity. More productivity means more goods and services to be bought and sold. Wealth isn't zero sum either. Its created by worker productivity. The more workers, the more production. The more production, the more money for workers. The more money for workers, the more demand for goods and services. The more demand for goods and services, the more jobs. The more jobs, the more workers.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    If tens of millions of immigrants flood the country they'll need food, clothes, housing, transportation..., creating hundreds of millions more of jobs.

    This assumes (with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVEr) that illegal immigrants will obtain goods thru legal means..

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nor are they the result of Obama's policies.

    of course not..

    The Messiah is ALWAYS blameless..

    I am surprised you would actually feel the need to articulate this..

    {/sarcasm}

    :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Your "10s of millions" assumes "(with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVEr)" that you know how many immigrants there will be in the future. Since the vast majority of immigrants to this country have always sought to earn a living through legal means, my assumption is easily as credible as your "projection."

    It isn't immigration that destroys economies. Its unproductive business overhead in the form of executives and owners siphoning off so much of the wealth generated by production that there isn't enough left to pay for productive workers. Its the wealth derived from production going to so few people that there isn't enough demand for goods and services created.--In other words its the trickle-down economics and concentration of wealth you embrace that kills economies.--Just as its killing ours.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since the vast majority of immigrants to this country have always sought to earn a living through legal means, my assumption is easily as credible as your "projection."

    Vast majority of LEGAL immigrants..

    We're not talking about LEGAL immigrants...

    We're taking about people who have, heretofore, been ILLEGAL immigrants..

    Do you HONESTLY think that, once they are allowed into the country legally, they will MAGICALLY become model citizens???

    "Were these MAGIC grits!!!?? Did you get them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans!!???"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    It isn't immigration that destroys economies.

    Yea???

    Tell that to the communities along the southern border...

    -In other words its the trickle-down economics and concentration of wealth you embrace that kills economies.--Just as its killing ours.

    Yea...

    And Obamanomics has done a REAL bang-up job so far, eh???

    Tell me...

    Why is Obama's poll numbers dropping like lead anchors???

    "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"??? :D

    Or that the American people are fed up with incompetence???

    "I'll take DOOR NUMBER 2, Alex!!"

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    LewDan wrote:

    And, Michale,

    Immigration reform is about legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants. Your insistence that legal immigration shouldn't be made available isn't because immigrants are illegal, its because your prejudices want immigrants to always be made illegal.

  129. [129] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The communities along the southern border are destroying themselves.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5548577

    Your belief that states controlled by Conservatives are economic basket cases because they're filled with illegal immigrants to exhausted, or stupid, to travel a few hundred miles more to northern states that actually have jobs may play well with the rabid Right, but its nonsense.

    The only ones southerners have to blame for their economies are themselves. As further evidenced by the fact that whenever they gain national control the entire nation's economy suffers, just like the South's.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    The communities along the southern border are destroying themselves.

    Of course they are..

    They have that tens of thousands of illegals are invading the communities at Obama's behest have absolutely NOTHING to do with it...

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5548577

    HUFFPO is your "proof"???

    Where's the Daily KOS link??? :D

    https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215860821987081633721.0004fd39453513c9dc418&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=38.993572,-95.405273&spn=29.283014,54.404297&t=m&source=embed&dg=feature

    At least MY evidence is made up of... ya know...

    FACTS....

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    REPOST Disregard Moderation Request.....

    The communities along the southern border are destroying themselves.

    Of course they are..

    They have that tens of thousands of illegals are invading the communities at Obama's behest have absolutely NOTHING to do with it...

    huffpost.com/us/entry/5548577

    HUFFPO is your "proof"???

    Where's the Daily KOS link??? :D

    https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215860821987081633721.0004fd39453513c9dc418&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=38.993572,-95.405273&spn=29.283014,54.404297&t=m&source=embed&dg=feature

    At least MY evidence is made up of... ya know...

    FACTS....

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immigration reform is about legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.

    No...

    Immigration REFORM is about Border Security...

    Immigration Amnesty is about minting fresh new Democrats voters...

    So, either way... Yer wrong..

    Your insistence that legal immigration shouldn't be made available isn't because immigrants are illegal,

    No.. My insistence is that legal immigration shouldn't be made available until the Border is secure..

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The majority can be depended upon not the to participate, while the minority actually cares who wins.

    In my experience, sadly this is true. If people vote, people win. I see where you're coming from now. I've been having this same discussion with many folks in my neighborhood.

    On immigration, the Chamber of Commerce position is in support of work visas because it gives employers coercive control over cheap imported laborers.

    This makes sense as well. Again, sadly. It did strike me as strange that the Chamber was willing to give up leverage over workers. Struck me that is as very "UnChamber-like".

    Their support makes more sense now. Appreciate the info.

    -David

  134. [134] 
    LewDan wrote:

    That's the problem with you wingers. "Legal immigration shouldn't be made available until the Border is secure.."

    Reality doesn't depend on what you want. The birder can not be secured until legal immigration is made available.--But if you just insist on building a tall fence I vote for placing it along the Mason-Dixon line.

    You don't support the federal government. You don't want to pay taxes. You already get more out if the federal government than you pay in taxes. You think you should ba able to decide your own laws instead if obeying the federal government.--And then you go crying about how Obama isn't solving all your problems for you!

    Please! I know how proud you all are of your ignorance. And you've certainly proven that no one else can come close to your proficiency at ignorance.--But tell it to someone who gives a damn! Illegal immigrants come here to work. The South just thinks its "entitled" and wants everyone else to pay for its stupidity so it doesn't have to. Immigrants aren't the South's problem. The South is the South's problem. Deal with it.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    The birder can not be secured until legal immigration is made available.-

    Bullshit....

    ANY border, ANY barrier, ANY line separating a part from other parts can be secured..

    All it takes is the will....

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    The birder can not be secured until legal immigration is made available.-

    Further, Legal Immigration IS available..

    So, let's secure that border...

    Good call....

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    No border in the history of mankind has ever been able to be physically secured. You are delusional. As always.

    You insist--are positive, that all it takes is "the will." The Great Wall of China couldn't do it. Its never been done before. But just because you want to do it it must be possible! Not only possible but mandatory!

    Well, unfortunately for you, whatever you may want, securing the border by force is not possible. And never will be. Securing the border will require the support and cooperation of the people outside of our borders.

    And there is no legal means of immigration for most. That is the problem. And as long as that's the case there will be no way to secure the border.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    No border in the history of mankind has ever been able to be physically secured. You are delusional. As always.

    Bullshit...

    You insist--are positive, that all it takes is "the will." The Great Wall of China couldn't do it. Its never been done before. But just because you want to do it it must be possible! Not only possible but mandatory!

    So, yer claim is that fences don't work??

    Well someone better tell the Secret Service. The White House is completely insecure...

    Every military base in the country is insecure, according to you...

    Newsflash for ya, Sunshine..

    When California built a fence on their southern border, illegal immigrants were cut by 98%...

    So, please... Lose the "borders can't be secured" BS...

    It insults my intelligence and makes you look ignorant..

    And there is no legal means of immigration for most.

    Oh.. NOW you are going to qualify it..

    There IS legal immigration...

    THAT is the only requirement that you stated to initiate border security..

    So, we're agreed..

    Border Security, THEN more immigration...

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    No border in the history of mankind has ever been able to be physically secured. You are delusional. As always.

    OK, if you want to play the "qualify" game I'll bite.. :D

    True.. NO border in the history (or FUTURE) of humankind has been nor will ever be 1000% secure...

    For everyone who builds a fool-proof rat trap there will always be a bigger and better fool of a rat..

    But, we're not talking about securing the borders against a super-007 James Bond type...

    We're not talking about securing the border against a Transformer or a Sam/Dean Winchester or a Borg Drone (DD of 36 Please :D) or a (insert your favorite superhero here)...

    We're talking about securing the border to prevent the kind of invasion we are seeing in the here and now along the border..

    I have worked that border.. I have LIVED that border...

    San Diego SO..

    San Ysidro, IB, Otay Mesa, Chula Vista, National City.. Those were my stomping grounds...

    So anyone who says we can't secure the border against illegal immigrants, is someone who is completely and utterly ignorant of the situation, the circumstances and security in general...

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    LewDan wrote:

    And military bases are attacked, their "borders" violated dozens if tines a year. The Whitehouse "border" was violated by some woman in a SUV not very long ago.

    And the only reason California has seen a decline in illegal immigration is that Texas is now easier, so that's where they cross. No matter how you reinforce some point will always be weakest and that's where illegal immigrants will cross. California hasn't secured the border. They've shifted the problem to someone else.

    NO border has EVER been successfully physically secured. China tried like hell. East Germany tried like hell. People all over the world have been trying for thousands of years. And no one has ever succeeded. But, you, Michale are positive that all it takes is "will" because you've lived in border towns?! Delusional much?

    ACTUAL security experts, Mr. Military Counter-Terrorism Expert will tell you that the goal of security isn't to prevent ingress and egress because that's impossible. Its to make it difficult and expensive. Which works just fine unless the reward for violating security is worth all the risk and effort, in which case someone will violate it anyway.

    Which is why immigration reform will do far more to secure our borders. It would reduce the incentive to violate the law instead of just trying to escalate the cost. Trying to build fences faster that immigrants can find ways across is a fools errand.

    We've already been the arms race route to national security. Many times! Its always turned out to be an all or nothing strategy. Its always threatened to destroy us. Nothing could be stupider than making it the go to strategy until it fails us, we slip, and finally wind up destroying ourselves. Its a last resort not a prime tactic.

    I'm impressed, though, that I've been able to insult your intelligence. I never thought that I'd ever even be able to find any signs of it, much less successfully target it! Your current contention that we could accomplish the impossible if we only throw enough money at it, (like a "surge?" Iraq "strategy" 2.0?!) only goes to show just how tiny a target it is.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the only reason California has seen a decline in illegal immigration is that Texas is now easier, so that's where they cross.

    And WHY is Texas (it's actually Arizona, but why quibble) easier??

    BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAS A FENCE!!

    It ain't rocket science, LD...

    NO border has EVER been successfully physically secured.

    Not 1000% secure no.. But, as California has PROVEN, it's easy to make it 98% secure...

    China tried like hell. East Germany tried like hell.

    Yea, cuz millions and millions are clamoring to get into China and East Germany...

    But, once again, you prove my point for me..

    No one is claiming that a border can be 1000% secure..

    But that doesn't mean you can't make it 80% secure. Or 90% secure... Or, in the case of California, 98% secure...

    Which is why immigration reform will do far more to secure our borders.

    EXACTLY. The Senate Immigration Reform will do WONDERS to secure our borders.

    BECAUSE IT STARTS WITH BORDER SECURITY!!

    I'm impressed, though, that I've been able to insult your intelligence. I never thought that I'd ever even be able to find any signs of it, much less successfully target it! Your current contention that we could accomplish the impossible if we only throw enough money at it, (like a "surge?" Iraq "strategy" 2.0?!) only goes to show just how tiny a target it is.

    I accept your concession of the debate.. :D

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    (like a "surge?" Iraq "strategy" 2.0?!)

    Do you mean Bush's surge that actually worked??

    Until Obama threw it all away??

    THAT surge???

    :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Texas, and Arizona are part of the border. California did not secure the border by shifting mist activity to some other point on the border. Your proof that the border can easily be secured doesn't prove a thing. China built one hell if a fence--and it didn't work. East Germany built on hell of a fence, and it didn't work.

    You wingers, with you contempt for both history, and science, always claim that your fantasies can be reality, if only you get to spend enough money making them happen. Other peoples money.

    This country has had enough of being bankrupted because of winger bigotry and paranoia. If Southern border states want fences on the border so badly, because they're so vital to their safety and economy, they are free to build their own.--At their own expense.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Texas, and Arizona are part of the border. California did not secure the border by shifting mist activity to some other point on the border.

    California DID secure CALIFORNIA's border..

    California PROVED that securing the border IS possible and even feasible...

    But Democrats took a look at what California did and said, "Holy Crap!!! We CAN secure the border and prevent all those new Democrat Voters from coming in!! We simply MUST stop ANY talk of securing the border!!!!!"

    If Southern border states want fences on the border so badly, because they're so vital to their safety and economy, they are free to build their own.--At their own expense.

    Yea, whatever it takes to make sure the free flow of illegal Dem voters continues unabated..

    Gotcha :D

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Southern border states want fences on the border so badly, because they're so vital to their safety and economy, they are free to build their own.--At their own expense.

    Then those same states are, of course, allowed to supersede FEDERAL IMMIGRATION law under the same principle, right??

    Check... And Mate.... :D

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    There's no need to supercede federal immigration laws to build a fence at the state border. There's no federal law against it. California's already done it. Haven't they?

    And if you're talking about states securing their own borders, regardless of the impact on neighboring states, then you're not talking about securing the nation's border.--What is that? Bait and switch?--Or just lying?

    If Arizona is seeing increased illegal immigration following California's building a fence then the fence wasn't good for Arizona. Which means it wasn't good for the country, only for California.--Maybe.--At least, for now.--But then, you wingers think the wealthy shifting their problems onto the poor is the way the world is supposed to work.

    Then there's your bragging about communities interfering with the federal government trying to enforce immigration law, at the same time you excoriate Obama for supposedly not enforcing immigration law.

    So none of your arguments make any sense but you think that they're irrefutable?! Just your usual self-delusional alternate reality rightwing irrationality.

  147. [147] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale, you seem to believe that if any border is secured then it proves that every border can be secured. So since I can lock my door it proves the border can be secured as well.

    Of course, no one is actually trying to break into my home. If the were they'd likely succeed. Just as California causing immigrants to prefer easier entry points doesn't prove California's border is secure. And California's fence is only on one of its borders. It does nothing to stop illegals who entered the country somewhere else from entering California. So it doesn't even secure California's border.

    As always, you see what you want to see. And think facts prove your arguments simply because you ignore all the facts that don't.

Comments for this article are closed.