The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Does this logic also apply to men butting out of women's reproductive health issues?

I live in very close proximity to a woman, so not sure the analogy works.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I live in very close proximity to a woman, so not sure the analogy works.

I live in very close proximity to an Arizonan, so I guess my opinion counts on immigration about as much as yours on choice.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Does this logic also apply to men butting out of women's reproductive health issues?

You aren't seriously trying to maintain that fathers have no say in the welfare of their children, are you???

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I said before that my initial take on this was a big win for Obama and big federal government. Pay attention before you troll please.

I wasn't throwing a dart at you Bob. More your state's leadership....

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You'd take this issue a good deal more seriously if you lived near the border and saw the deleterious impacts of lax federal policing of the border. But, given that you don't, I can understand why you keep your head in the sand.

There are many issues that I take very seriously. One of them is the Grover "starve the government" philosophy that has permeated everything that happens in Washington. Until that gets fixed or rectified your little immigration issue is going to stay status quo.

But don't worry. I'm sure Romney will find a way to fix it without spending any money. He's good at that.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

But don't worry. I'm sure Romney will find a way to fix it without spending any money. He's good at that.

I would love it if he were to say that people who think that the only way the Federal government can raise revenues is by raising tax rates are missing out on a great opportunity. The Federal government owns a huge amount of rights and assets that have the potential to produce revenue that (I suspect) currently are under-performing due to sweetheart below-market lease to well-connected buddies of influential politicians. If he were to unlock the revenue from grazing rights, timber royalties, oil and gas drilling, that would be a great way for him to differentiate himself and increase support.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I would love it if he were to say that people who think that the only way the Federal government can raise revenues is by raising tax rates are missing out on a great opportunity. The Federal government owns a huge amount of rights and assets that have the potential to produce revenue that (I suspect) currently are under-performing due to sweetheart below-market lease to well-connected buddies of influential politicians. If he were to unlock the revenue from grazing rights, timber royalties, oil and gas drilling, that would be a great way for him to differentiate himself and increase support.

All I know is the Feds percentage of GDP is at historic lows right now. But, I'm pretty sure cutting taxes will fix the problem cause Romney told me so.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

All I know is the Feds percentage of GDP is at historic lows right now. But, I'm pretty sure cutting taxes will fix the problem cause Romney told me so.

??? Are you talking about federal spending as a % of GDP being at historic lows, or federal revenue as a % of GDP being at historic lows?

Either way, neither is true: Spending Chart. Revenue Chart. What are you trying to say?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I live in very close proximity to an Arizonan, so I guess my opinion counts on immigration about as much as yours on choice.

You made the move?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

There are many issues that I take very seriously. One of them is the Grover "starve the government" philosophy that has permeated everything that happens in Washington. Until that gets fixed or rectified your little immigration issue is going to stay status quo.

But don't worry. I'm sure Romney will find a way to fix it without spending any money. He's good at that.

When you refer to something as "your little immigration issue" I know that you don't take it seriously. But, pretend you do if you want.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

??? Are you talking about federal spending as a % of GDP being at historic lows, or federal revenue as a % of GDP being at historic lows?

Either way, neither is true: Spending Chart. Revenue Chart. What are you trying to say?

It was reported very recently in the news that revenue was about 18% of GDP and outlays were 22% (stimulus, etc.). That may have changed recently but I'm pretty sure that's what it was.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

When you refer to something as "your little immigration issue" I know that you don't take it seriously. But, pretend you do if you want.

I don't think he's pretending. He's flat out stating that there are other things we need to focus on which are more important than immigration.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't think he's pretending. He's flat out stating that there are other things we need to focus on which are more important than immigration.

If you list the issues we have right now I'd put it out of the top 10 without even having to think about it.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't think he's pretending. He's flat out stating that there are other things we need to focus on which are more important than immigration.

Yeah, like the fact that the economy has been so bad (especially in construction) the last few years that illegal immigration from Mexico was a negative number.

Pretty low on my priority list, then.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't think he's pretending. He's flat out stating that there are other things we need to focus on which are more important than immigration.

That makes even less sense. So, we're so focused on other issues that we can't put resources and effort into controlling our borders? We take on yet another characteristic of a failed nation state.

And Obama, to add insult to injury, has yanked the cooperative agreements the feds had in place with a variety of police departments in Arizona. What an embarrassment that we have a President who not only won't enforce federal laws he doesn't like, but actively undermines others who try to help do it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If you list the issues we have right now I'd put it out of the top 10 without even having to think about it.

You probably also support Obama's stonewalling of the investigation of the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Not important enough to give any attention to. The federal government can only focus on a few of the highest priority tasks, and everything else is ignored in this Alice in Wonderland view.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

That makes even less sense. So, we're so focused on other issues that we can't put resources and effort into controlling our borders? We take on yet another characteristic of a failed nation state.

Imagine that your wife has a list of things for you to do. There isn't enough time for you to do everything, so you have to choose which to complete. You might prioritize it by what you can do fastest and leave the big jobs for later, or maybe she's been bugging for 2 months to fix the leaky faucet. How you prioritize the list is up to you.

We have a list of things to do. We have X amount of revenues. X will not cover everything on our To Do list. Therefore we have to prioritize things we care about and spend our revenue there. Immigration doesn't make the cut. Maybe if we get more revenue (perish the thought) or the matter becomes more important, it might move up the list.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

That makes even less sense. So, we're so focused on other issues that we can't put resources and effort into controlling our borders? We take on yet another characteristic of a failed nation state.

And Obama, to add insult to injury, has yanked the cooperative agreements the feds had in place with a variety of police departments in Arizona. What an embarrassment that we have a President who not only won't enforce federal laws he doesn't like, but actively undermines others who try to help do it.

Bush wanted comprehensive reform. The consevatives blocked it. Blame them.

Obama wanted the dream act. Conservatives blocked it in the senate. Blame them.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Note that there have been a string of 9-0 rulings this year limiting federal government power, and now the 8-0 ruling on the AZ case as well (the other three AZ parts tossed also involved the "proper balance" between federal and state powers)...Regarding the AZ case, the 8-0 ruling is seen by many as a rebuke to Obama for not enforcing the laws that Congress wrote....does the Executive get to choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore?

In what way does a decison striking down 75% of a state law and greatly limiting the impact of the remaining 25% constitute either a limit on Federal immigration power or a rebuke of Obama's administration?

Scalia's bombastic rant notwithstanding, I think you're buying into the GOP spin way too much.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It was reported very recently in the news that revenue was about 18% of GDP and outlays were 22% (stimulus, etc.). That may have changed recently but I'm pretty sure that's what it was.

Well, "historically" low when compared to the last 4 years, then. Clearly not when looking at the long-term history.