 |
I like accountability, let's start with holding the Democrats accountable for the ever-increasing costs of that health care bill they rammed through Congress, not a law that has yet to take effect that no one has apparently even read?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Democrats don't raise insurance company premiums, insurance companies due. And I doubt they consult with democrats, or republicans before they do.
Have you read the law? You have it backwards see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I said nothing about insurance companies raising rates, I'm speaking entirely of the lies and shenanigans pulled by Congress and this administration in passing the legislation resulting in an ever-increasing price tag for the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You've BOTH got it right. The law IS a response to the feds doing NOTHING, and it IS a bad law based on fear.
You tell me, Steve, how many times did we hear about that rancher near the border who got himself killed by illegals?? Then you have the cojones to say that the REACTION to this racist law is what's causing the fear... Dude!
excon
The rancher's murder may have contributed to the passage of the law, but it was not the basis of law. I stand on my comments and still await your holding the administration responsible for apologizing to one of the world biggest human rights violators in the world for a law that hasn't been read and hasn't violated one person's rights.
Yes I have read the law, and stop, and think given the lowered crime rate over the last 3 years, and additional funding, and training of local police to deal with the problem, why make a law in fear and panic rather than just address the problem, put some of those low paying employers in jail for hiring illegals in the first place. Would you risk your life on going somewhere where you couldn't make a dime? Not fair to hang a carrot out, and get mad when a rabbit comes to eat it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The article you quoted also says,Quote:
I said nothing about insurance companies raising rates, I'm speaking entirely of the lies and shenanigans pulled by Congress and this administration in passing the legislation resulting in an ever-increasing price tag for the bill.
"Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs — period.”
Read more: CBO ups health care cost projections - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
So that's another wild claim by republicans, when the facts are not in evidence yet. What is the republican plan to address this issue, and why didn't it get done when they had the house, senate, and the white house?? More so, why is the bill that has half the amendments adapted, proposed by republicans, still opposed? Tell you why, ELECTIONS ARE HERE FOLKS, and that's all its about, not working together for solutions.
Fear has always been a great republican tactic, because conservatives are always scared of losing something. Doesn't matter the rest of the world is starving, as long as they have theirs its cool, and conservative don't share, the take, and then holler because everyone else wants a piece of pie to.
End of rant!
What "lowered crime rate" are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What fear and panic? The only fear and panic I see is that coming from the left over a law they haven't read. We have an administration that hasn't read the law which is not in effect, volunteering it as an example of our human rights abuses in apology to a regime that's murdered millions of its own people.Quote:
and additional funding, and training of local police to deal with the problem, why make a law in fear and panic rather than just address the problem,
.Quote:
Not fair to hang a carrot out, and get mad when a rabbit comes to eat it
Tell the feds to enforce their own laws instead of dangling carrots.
And an aide's word is facts in evidence?Quote:
So that's another wild claim by republicans, when the facts are not in evidence yet.
Excuse me, but after discussing a reasonable law that's been compared to Nazism and Soviet-style repression I find that quite amusing.Quote:
Fear has always been a great republican tactic, because conservatives are always scared of losing something
Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless.
The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Spoken like a true believer. Any law, however, that targets illegal aliens for deportation WITHOUT addressing the circumstances of their arrival, which is that we INVITED them, isn't reasonable at all. Laws must be made in CONTEXT.
In fact, as I've mentioned before, the doctrine of ESTOPPEL makes the Arizona law illegal on its face:
"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse."
excon
Chart: Arizona crime statistics - latimes.com
Both sides in Arizona's immigration debate use crime argument - Los Angeles Times
Hard to argue facts fellows as crime is DOWN across the country. More so in Arizona, so what's up with the fear? Okay more needs to be done, but even though 70% are supporting this bill, the 30% who don't are making an awful lot of noise. Bet this changes after the election, when you don't need the right wing all revved up and willing to do anything for a vote.
The Arizona law is crafted on and parallels the Federal law.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Why "Brown" people think they have any god given right to violate OUR laws is beyond comprehension. AND its not just Latinos... Illegals come from other places too... and they aren't above the law by virtue they speak spanish as a first and sometimes only language any more than any other illegal is.
There is a law on the books. Just because someone decides to not enforce it to collect the equivalent of bribes to look the other way doesn't render it unenforcible by someone not on the take.
Same with drug addicts... Heroin, Crank, Crack... pot.
All illegal... and for good reason.
What has been unclear is what does Arizona really want, beside a very conservative election outcome. For proof of fact, just watch McCain keep pandering further to the right. Don't worry, when the election is over there will be no more fear mongering. But the taxes will go up. State taxes from lost revenues because of all the boycotts from the 30%!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless. The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .
I'm on lawyer, but that sure sounds to me like that would only possibly apply (if it could apply at all) if someone was charged for violating the old law but prosecuted under the new law. Even then, current law says immigrants must carry their papers at all times. So how exactly would this apply?
Hello again, Steve:
ANY law that pretends that we didn't invite them in, employ them, let them settle here and start families, and then for the last 50 years totally ignored their presence here, is AGAINST the doctrine of laches.
excon
The law didn't invite them in, the law didn't employ them, the law didn't let them settle here and start a family, they've been breaking the law all along. If they've entered the country illegally since the last amnesty was granted they're breaking the law. I think you're going to have a tough time selling that one. But don't worry, as soon as Obama gets all his empathetic judges in place folks will start getting justice based on something besides the law.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That's the idea. If they were breaking the law all along, as you say, yet the federal government DIDN'T do anything about it, that's when laches attaches. It'll fly too. It's the same idea regarding the statutes of limitations... They weren't written to give a criminal a pass. No, they were written because they realized that passing time DOES alter context.
excon
Doctrine of laches... the principle that says I can squat on someone else's property and then claim it as mine because the person hasn't actively kicked me off the property.
In the case of Arizona they have ruled that "laches may not be imputed to a party for mere delay in the assertion of a claim."
I would also think that a claim of laches would have to be submitted before it ever was invoked.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There has to be a case first. So, the time to assert laches is right after one is arrested.
Look. I'm no lawyer, and I didn't receive any emails telling me what the illegals are going to do. They probably won't follow my advice - but they SHOULD. No, I ain't no lawyer, but I can read..
excon
When you were stopped the last time for any traffic offense... did you tell the cop to piss off when he asked for your ID (if you had the balls to do so what happened?). Why should Latinos be exempt.
After all everyone else has to produce an ID... they all get run for outstanding warrants etc...
What makes Latinos (Russians, Chinese, Indians "not native Americans", etc) special in not being checked for immigration status as well.
After all, 43 states require you to have some for of legal ID... and 100% of motor vehicle operators are required to do so.
Now if San Francisco decided to crack down on illegals I can see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Speaking about Ranchers defending their property rights...
A group of 16 illegal aliens are suing rancher Roger Barnett for $32 million because he allegedly violated their "civil rights " when he stopped them from crossing over the border on his property at gun point ,and turning them over to local authorities .
Barnett began rounding up illegals in 1998 and turning them over to the authorities after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
Since then he has personally stopped 12,000 illegals from crossing his property .
A District Judge ,the skunk John Roll ruled that Barnett's request to drop the charges should be denied because there was sufficient evidence in the illegal's case to present before a jury . Barnett's lawyer argued that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens . I agree.
In a 2002 interview with the Washington Times Barnett said
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," ... "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
When the state breaks the compact between citizens and the state to provide them security it is the right of the citizen to protect home ,family and property from a foreign invasion or any criminal attempt on same.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't disagree at all... Except for your characterization of illegal immigrants. You think they're here to steal your money and sell drugs. I think they're here to pick your lettuce.
If Arizona passed an immigration law based on the FACTS as they actually ARE, instead of FEAR, I wouldn't oppose it. But, you guys ain't got it right yet.
excon
They isn't here to just pick lettuce .
This is the equivalent of outsourcing . But instead of moving the jobs to the cheap labor ,this is bringing the cheap labor in. It is still exploitive and even worse ;it drives wages down here and denies real jobs to citizens.
It never ceases to amaze me how this is justified by the same people who decry slave labor overseas .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't decry those things. I don't believe in a minimum wage either, because it increases unemployment instead of helping the poor. I'm a market wage kind of guy.
But, even IF the wages paid to your lettuce pickers were LESS than market rates, they're HEAPS more than the market wages in Mexico, where the money is going to be spent. By that barometer, they're substantially OVERPAID. They're getting wealthy picking our grapes.
So, no. I don't feel sorry for 'em - except for the fact that you want to throw 'em out.
excon
What you want is cheap grapes off the back of exploited workers. But it isn't just produce ,it is every industry they infiltrate... And that is what increases the unemployment rate of the poor. Illegals do take jobs away from unskilled American workers. That is undeniable.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It IS undeniable. But, that's the free market at work. I thought, as a dedicated right winger, you'd like that.
By the way, have you ever thought about going after the employers? Why only the brown skinned people?
excon
Why hasn't the Governor, the state AG, or the legislature gone after the employers? Hmmmm!
There's that word again, free, used to justify every thing from exploitation to murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I am going to go with no thanks--It's bad enough we seem to be following in the footsteps of some of europes bad ideas, I don't think we need anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That is as good a definition of latches as I have seen... Though I don't think it's the issue in this particular law.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The main issue in the Arizona law is that the Congress has plenary power over the area of alienage and all state laws will be immediately preempted. The politicians in Arizona knew that, they made the law to 1) play to their base and 2) to try and force the administration to enforce the laws already on the books.
I see this has fallen into the same democrat v republican talking point back and forth that usually stalemates these discussions. Someday people will look beyond the party line and realize its not us (dem or rep) against them (republcans or dems) but us (the people) against them (the politicians who are beholding to the money handlers of both parties).
[QUOTE=tomder55;2355690]speaking about Ranchers defending their property rights...
A group of 16 illegal aliens are suing rancher Roger Barnett for $32 million because he allegedly violated their "civil rights " when he stopped them from crossing over the border on his property at gun point ,and turning them over to local authorities .
Barnett began rounding up illegals in 1998 and turning them over to the authorities after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
Since then he has personally stopped 12,000 illegals from crossing his property .
A District Judge ,the skunk John Roll ruled that Barnett's request to drop the charges should be denied because there was sufficient evidence in the illegal's case to present before a jury . Barnett's lawyer argued that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens . I agree.
But the Supreme Court doesn't so you lose, they get rights the min their feet hit the US side. Now, that is a broad statement and not entirely acurate to the Courts long and obtuse holding, but it essentially makes the point. (not saying I agree with the court either).
Simple, where do you think they get their campaign contributions from? Though, I am sure you knew that already.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So what you are saying is you are content with your own bad ideas, which you happily export to the rest of the world, just sharing the misery around. But what goes around, comes around and now you are drowning in your own misery of inadequate regulation, inadequate enforcement and just plain lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by adthern
The not made here syndrome works for a while until you realise that sometimes others have workable ideas
I have been very clear about my position on the employers who knowingly hire them. They are as criminal as the illegals . Both need to be held to the rule of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That is definitely not the free market unless you believe the free market operates in a lawless environment . But to have a civil society you need enforceable rules. Illegal aliens in the market place distort the market place.
You really don't have a clue . I absorb these snipes constantly ,but they hold no weight. I live my life surrounded by, and working closely with people of all colors. This is the last time I'll respond to this implication that race is a determining factor in the positions I take.Quote:
Why only the brown skinned people?
More than banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies and private contractors?Quote:
Illegal aliens in the market place distort the market place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That applies to all industry .But yes ;from the perspective of the unskilled laborer ,indeed the illegals distort the market place much more .There are thousands of American workers who have lost opportunities because they have been priced out of the market in their own country by illegals (mostly minority workers )Quote:
to have a civil society you need enforceable rules.
banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies All provide hundreds of thousand of real jobs in this country... as do the contractors who live within the rule of law and find that their business suffers due to the illegal activity of the contractors who exploit illegal aliens .
Now I get it. Thanks. Illegals should give more money to either change the rules, or hire a lobby to buy a politician. That makes perfect sense.Quote:
to have a civil society you need enforceable rules.
They already have a lobby .It's called Democrat politicians who could care less about the workers rights they claim to support ;and are more interested in bringing in indentured servants for their political base ;who they seduce with the promises of the nanny state.
What is really sad was that at one time liberal politicians like Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy walked arm in arm with Cesar Chavez protesting the use of illegal aliens employed by ranchers to break the UFWA . Back then the Democrats cared about American workers. Now ,beyond paying lip service and sleeping with the corrupt labor union management ;they couldn't give a sh*t about the plight of the legal labor force.
Here is the Chavez testimony to Congress in 1979 :
“When the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the Strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. … The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking …”
Isn't that how you should feel about Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 PM. |