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

[Bakunin]

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

Actually, if immigration is down that is a serious problem.

I don't believe there's been any impact on legal immigration as of yet.

Joe, why would we pay them $20k apiece? That's a lot of money down there. $5k would probably be sufficient.

Besides, we wouldn't need to occupy the country to take most of their oil. A tiny portion of our navy could secure their offshore assets pretty quickly, and if we militarized the southern border, they wouldn't dare retaliate. We could be the ultimate rogue nation.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

What could possibly go wrong?

When you live in an area infested by drug runners and such, you have to make choices like that. It's easy for us to sit back and throw stones saying a mom shouldn't carry a gun. On the other hand, parents want to do what they can to protect their children, and in the rural areas of southern Arizona, law enforcement is often a good distance away so you have to take steps to protect your family in light of that. I'm not a big gun fan and don't own any, but I can understand people in southern Arizona carrying guns with them in certain circumstances.

 

[jerphisch]

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?

Ah the joys of filtering. If you filter on Federal Total Direct Revenue it sure looks like 2010 was a record low.

 

[Kepler]

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

When you live in an area infested by drug runners and such, you have to make choices like that. It's easy for us to sit back and throw stones saying a mom shouldn't carry a gun. On the other hand, parents want to do what they can to protect their children, and in the rural areas of southern Arizona, law enforcement is often a good distance away so you have to take steps to protect your family in light of that. I'm not a big gun fan and don't own any, but I can understand people in southern Arizona carrying guns with them in certain circumstances.

I'm not saying a mom shouldn't carry a gun, I'm saying that if a mom carried a gun to a bus stop where my kid went I would (1) enroll my kid in private school to get away from her kids, who are also likely sociopathic, and (2) do everything I possibly could to have her committed to an asylum.

I wouldn't even carry a gun to a bus stop in South Philly, and that's ten thousand times more dangerous than Armadillo Arse, Arizona.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

I'm not saying a mom shouldn't carry a gun, I'm saying that if a mom carried a gun to a bus stop where my kid went I would (1) enroll my kid in private school to get away from her kids, who are also likely sociopathic, and (2) do everything I possibly could to have her committed to an asylum.

I wouldn't even carry a gun to a bus stop in South Philly, and that's ten thousand times more dangerous than Armadillo Arse, Arizona.

So someone who carries a gun in an attempt to safeguard their children at the bus stop is by definition a sociopath and be committed to an asylum? Uh, wow.

 

[Kepler]

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

So someone who carries a gun in an attempt to safeguard their children at the bus stop is by definition a sociopath and be committed to an asylum? Uh, wow.

No, someone who carries a gun to a school bus stop is a nut.

Not a sociopath, though, you're right about that. I'm sure in her twisted mind she actually is doing it for her kid. But man, I do not want that woman in the same time zone as my child.

BTW, I thought the Brady bill banned guns from school zones. (Is a school bus stop a school zone? I'm not sure.)

 

[LynahFan]

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

Ah the joys of filtering. If you filter on Federal Total Direct Revenue it sure looks like 2010 was a record low.

From which we've already recovered, yet the deficit keeps climbing. I wonder why?

 

[Bob Gray]

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

No, someone who carries a gun to a school bus stop is a nut.

Not a sociopath, though, you're right about that. I'm sure in her twisted mind she actually is doing it for her kid. But man, I do not want that woman in the same time zone as my child.

BTW, I thought the Brady bill banned guns from school zones. (Is a school bus stop a school zone? I'm not sure.)

I'm pretty sure school bus stops aren't considered school zones. But, you fail to recognize what people in these at risk border areas face. Small town midwest, yah, it makes zero sense to be armed going to the bus stop. Southern Arizona, where you're at times on your own to protect you and yours? Certainly a much more viable scenario. Certainly it's not a good thing to have guns mixing with school bus stops, but you liberals should be more supportive of a secure border and then the scenario we're talking about would be unnecessary. The article I read on this indicated that this has only become a trend in recent years, as drug running across the Arizona border has become a tidal wave and much more organized and viscious.

 

[Kepler]

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

We have 2 differences of opinion on this. The first is that bringing a gun to a school bus stop decreases the likelihood of something bad happening at the bus stop. I think the likelihood of an accident or a conflict provoked by the presence of the gun itself is far, far higher than the likelihood of anything bad being prevented by it. The second is that opposing the AZ law means you don't care about border security. I think I do care about border security, but "Show Me Your Papers" is a bad road to go down, even if there is an implementation of it that passes Constitutional tests. It's like TSA airport theater on steroids.

Oh, here's a quickie I found about the NJ statutes on bus stops and school zones. In that state, a school bus stop is not school grounds but a school bus is. That makes intuitive sense to me.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

And we have the obviousness of the issue.

This issue (border security and immigration) is exactly the same as the abortion issue. No one wants to solve it cause there is too much money and political hay to be made leaving it in the chaotic state its in now.

Thus, it will never be solved.

So, my suggestion to all southern Arizonians is to start packing (your bags, or your guns, whichever you prefer).

 

[Kepler]

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

The politics of immigration are a lot more interesting than abortion, though, because opinions on immigration cut across party lines the way most issues used to, and the way very few do now. So on the right corporate cons want the slave labor while social cons want the scary brownies out, while on the left bleeding hearts want to abolish national borders while blue collar labor wants protection from having their wages undercut.

Politics was a lot more entertaining and unpredictable when every issue was like that. It also leads to pols talking out of both sides of their mouth (even more blatantly than usual), and that's always good fun.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

The politics of immigration are a lot more interesting than abortion, though, because opinions on immigration cut across party lines the way most issues used to, and the way very few do now. So on the right corporate cons want the slave labor while social cons want the scary brownies out, while on the left bleeding hearts want to abolish national borders while blue collar labor wants protection from having their wages undercut.

Politics was a lot more entertaining and unpredictable when every issue was like that. It also leads to pols talking out of both sides of their mouth, and that's always good fun.

The only reason abortion and other issues like it don't cut across party lines is because of the purity tests enacted by the parties. Taxes is another fine example of something that used to go both ways and now thanks to Grover does not.

And the more purity tests we enact the less likely we are to get things done. Immigration will get to a purity test. It's only a matter of time.

I see the Dems scared the Repubs just enough on the College Loan issue to get them to cave. We still don't have a way to pay for it but that's never mattered. There goes another 6 billion that could have been funneled to Bob's fence.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

And we have the obviousness of the issue.

This issue (border security and immigration) is exactly the same as the abortion issue. No one wants to solve it cause there is too much money and political hay to be made leaving it in the chaotic state its in now.

Thus, it will never be solved.

So, my suggestion to all southern Arizonians is to start packing (your bags, or your guns, whichever you prefer).

Actually a measured solution to the border problem would have enormous economic benefits if done in a sensible manner. You'd make a way for Mexicans to legally work here under some sort of work permit plan, thus drying up the need to sneak across the border and work illegally, you'd then be able to focus all your border resources (assuming there are enough) to controlling the drug running, without spending lots of money in controlling and processing illegals who are coming across to work, and a more controlled border would enormously benefit the economy of our border regions. Wouldn't be a win/win for everyone, but there are some compelling arguments that there would be some economic benefits.

As compared to abortion, where the main economic argument I suppose could be that as you make abortions more difficult to do, Planned Parenthood's significant profits from providing abortions would be commensurately reduced, which I would think most people would support unless they like seeing people making lots of money off abortions, which I suppose there may be a few around.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Actually a measured solution to the border problem would have enormous economic benefits if done in a sensible manner. You'd make a way for Mexicans to legally work here under some sort of work permit plan, thus drying up the need to sneak across the border and work illegally, you'd then be able to focus all your border resources (assuming there are enough) to controlling the drug running, without spending lots of money in controlling and processing illegals who are coming across to work, and a more controlled border would enormously benefit the economy of our border regions. Wouldn't be a win/win for everyone, but there are some compelling arguments that there would be some economic benefits.

As compared to abortion, where the main economic argument I suppose could be that as you make abortions more difficult to do, Planned Parenthood's significant profits from providing abortions would be commensurately reduced, which I would think most people would support unless they like seeing people making lots of money off abortions, which I suppose there may be a few around.

Abortions is only 3% of what they do. Your party says the Feds are funding it (which they're not) and now you say they're making huge coin off of it (which they're not). This is why we never get anywhere on this issue, and your solution for immigration WILL NEVER HAPPEN because too many people get donations because it doesn't.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

 

[Priceless]

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

Abortions is only 3% of what they do. Your party says the Feds are funding it (which they're not) and now you say they're making huge coin off of it (which they're not). This is why we never get anywhere on this issue, and your solution for immigration WILL NEVER HAPPEN because too many people get donations because it doesn't.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

I thought 90% of what they did was abortions...

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Abortions is only 3% of what they do.

And they make a boatload of money doing them. It's well documented that when finances are down, they give orders to abortion facility directors to get their abortion numbers up to get the profits back up. Grisly.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

And they make a boatload of money doing them. It's well documented that when finances are down, they give orders to abortion facility directors to get their abortion numbers up to get the profits back up. Grisly.

I'd love to see this documentation. No company that large makes huge coin off of 3% of their business. And there's no inherent way to "get the abortion numbers up". Most of their business is based in keeping that number down.

 

[Kepler]

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

Bob, your immigration idea sounds like the germ of something very workable and sensible. Hence I highly doubt it will ever get passed. But in all honesty, I would vote for something approaching that.

You couldn't be more wrong about abortion. NOBODY wants more abortions; everybody is working to reduce them. That's something the so-called "Pro Life" movement has never grasped, either because of a genuine ignorance of what motivated the creation of the reproductive rights movement in the first place or because it simply doesn't fit with their white hats-black hats dimestore novel view of social policy.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Actually a measured solution to the border problem would have enormous economic benefits if done in a sensible manner. You'd make a way for Mexicans to legally work here under some sort of work permit plan, thus drying up the need to sneak across the border and work illegally, you'd then be able to focus all your border resources (assuming there are enough) to controlling the drug running, without spending lots of money in controlling and processing illegals who are coming across to work, and a more controlled border would enormously benefit the economy of our border regions. Wouldn't be a win/win for everyone, but there are some compelling arguments that there would be some economic benefits.

As compared to abortion, where the main economic argument I suppose could be that as you make abortions more difficult to do, Planned Parenthood's significant profits from providing abortions would be commensurately reduced, which I would think most people would support unless they like seeing people making lots of money off abortions, which I suppose there may be a few around.

I think the only constituency who would be viscerally opposed to your (sensible, IMHO) approach would be labor groups, who might not want a permanent competitor in the marketplace - they may prefer to hold out hope that foreigners could be kept out entirely. If they're smart, though, they'll realize that's a pipe dream and accept that regulated foreign labor will still not depress wages as much as illegal foreign labor.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Bob, your immigration idea sounds like the germ of something very workable and sensible. Hence I highly doubt it will ever get passed. But in all honesty, I would vote for something approaching that.

You couldn't be more wrong about abortion. NOBODY wants more abortions; everybody is working to reduce them. That's something the so-called "Pro Life" movement has never grasped, either because of a genuine ignorance of what motivated the creation of the reproductive rights movement in the first place or because it simply doesn't fit with their white hats-black hats dimestore novel view of social policy.

Planned Parenthood wants more abortions. Money.

Many others, yes, I recognize what you're saying, to varying extents.