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

[FreshFish]

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

Bush wanted comprehensive reform. The consevatives blocked it.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Are you really that unaware????

Senator Obama from Illinois blocked the reform. McCain and the Dems had already worked out the details and had the bill ready for passage. At the last minute, Sen Obama (D-IL) asked to join, they let him, after which he then inserted "poison pill" language and the bill was defeated.

Don't believe me? Look it up!

 

[duper]

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.

Funny how quite a few of the people I know who live ON the border don't feel this way.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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

It's also been reported that we run at about 20% historically. We take in less than that. We apparently have a problem taxing back to that level cause we can't raise taxes.

Let's lower them again.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Are you really that unaware????

Senator Obama from Illinois blocked the reform. McCain and the Dems had already worked out the details and had the bill ready for passage. At the last minute, Sen Obama (D-IL) asked to join, they let him, after which he then inserted "poison pill" language and the bill was defeated.

Don't believe me? Look it up!

The poison pill was inserted by Bryan Dorgan, not Obama.

Obama did vote for it, but there were many more Republicans who voted for the poison pill then Democrats.

Try again.

And I sourced that at an ANTI-LIBERAL website.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...l-immigration-reform-2007-will-media-remember

 

[Bakunin]

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

Therefore we have to prioritize things we care about and spend our revenue there. Immigration doesn't make the cut.

Which is comical given the fact that this is one of the core functions of the federal government. We have what is far and away the best military on the planet, yet we cannot do anything to control the flow of people into the country? Sense this does not make.

Maybe if we get more revenue (perish the thought) or the matter becomes more important, it might move up the list.

It's clearly an issue of priorities. Did we do anything significant on immigration when the country's fiscal situation was far better than this? No. So what makes you think we would do anything if and when that situation improves? The powers that be would simply find other things to spend that money on which have far greater electoral weight.

 

[WeWantMore]

Obama did vote for it, but there were many more Republicans who voted for the poison pill then Democrats.

Lol. Did you read the link you posted?

Voting "yes" were 37 Democrats, 11 Republicans and one independent.

Voting "no" were 10 Democrats, 37 Republicans and one independent.

But go ahead, move the goalposts again.

 

[Bakunin]

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

I believe the term you are looking for is "simple math".

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Which is comical given the fact that this is one of the core functions of the federal government. We have what is far and away the best military on the planet, yet we cannot do anything to control the flow of people into the country? Sense this does not make.

It's clearly an issue of priorities. Did we do anything significant on immigration when the country's fiscal situation was far better than this? No. So what makes you think we would do anything if and when that situation improves? The powers that be would simply find other things to spend that money on which have far greater electoral weight.

I think the point is that there has been investment and based on studies significant progress on border security...and the issue is of lower priority than it was due to the fact that there just aren't many illegals coming in to the country anymore. Oh and that the country's other problems have grown. I do see the national economy as a partial responsibility of the govt (yet aknowledge that most social legislation is a waste of time).

Having said that, I have no problem closing down military bases around the world, cutting troops counts in half and sticking the remainder on the Mexican border.

 

[Kepler]

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

Having said that, I have no problem closing down military bases around the world, cutting troops counts in half and sticking the remainder on the Mexican border.

I'd be fine with this, too, but the only way to do it is to discover oil in the Chihuahuan Desert.

 

[Kepler]

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

You made the move?

On her, yes. She's from Flagstaff. (I know, what can you expect?)

 

[Bakunin]

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

I'd be fine with this, too, but the only way to do it is to discover oil in the Chihuahuan Desert.

Mexico has a fair amount of oil. It'd make a lot more sense to invade that country and take theirs than it does to invade middle eastern countries.

 

[Kepler]

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

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.

Actually, if immigration is down that is a serious problem. The US will have the best demographic pyramid among developed nations in 20 years entirely because of immigration, because women who graduate high school have a bad habit of finding other things to do besides make baby after baby.

The Mexicans' kids are going to be paying for all of our social security and Medicare. Hint: don't deport the guy who is going to be keeping you alive in 2030.

Heck, we absorbed the Irish, and they're a lot harder to take.

 

[Kepler]

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

Mexico has a fair amount of oil. It'd make a lot more sense to invade that country and take theirs than it does to invade middle eastern countries.

And in both cases we'd be protecting angry old Jews. AIPAC doesn't even have to change their press releases.

But that oil's in the Gulf. If push ever comes to shove I'm sure we'll find a reason to "liberate" it. Venezuela will probably get our assistance too.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Funny how quite a few of the people I know who live ON the border don't feel this way.

Maybe they live in areas like California, where a lot more funding and personnel have been provided, thus providing a much more secure border. I notice you don't say the people you know live on or are familiar with the Arizona border. I know people who live there, work for ICE, etc.

I sometimes make the mistake of thinking that Americans who don't live near the border care about living in a country where moms have to carry guns to the bus stop to protect their children while they wait for the school bus, drug cartels effectively control portions of U.S. territory, people minding their own business on their own property near the border are murdered, etc. If nothing else you liberals should worry about the environmental consequences of what goes on at the border, even if the people there aren't of much concern.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

On her, yes. She's from Flagstaff. (I know, what can you expect?)

Nice place, if one can find decent employment.

Thought for a moment you had chosen to move to Jan Brewer's lair.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Mexico has a fair amount of oil. It'd make a lot more sense to invade that country and take theirs than it does to invade middle eastern countries.

As a country, we are getting very good at having to retreat with nothing to show for it.

 

[Kepler]

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

As a country, we are getting very good at having to retreat with nothing to show for it.

It must be the increased influence of Southerners.

 

[Kepler]

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

Nice place, if one can find decent employment.

Thought for a moment you had chosen to move to Jan Brewer's lair.

We were thinking about it, but we think it's a better idea to stay in DC for another few years, not least because our house value did what everybody else's did the last 5 years.

It actually had nothing to do with Ms. Brewer. I thought Tucson was lovely.

 

[Kepler]

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

moms have to carry guns to the bus stop to protect their children while they wait for the school bus

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[joecct]

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

Mexico has a fair amount of oil. It'd make a lot more sense to invade that country and take theirs than it does to invade middle eastern countries.

There's about 112.5 million Mexicans. Somebody came up with if we paid $20,000 to every Mexican for their country, it would cost us $2,250,000,000,000 (2.25 trillion) - a drop in the bucket today compared to waging a war.

Note to self: The actual cost may be closer to $5 trillion when counting overhead to process the payments via the local government.