HopefulFuture

Did you not state it's petty? I am stating it's not. I'm not advocating Georgia deny it's citizens information on health care, I'm advocating following the Constitution. People aren't happy with what Georgia has done, it's citizens have a way to reverse that, via the election process.

Correct. The citizens of Georgia have every right to vent their frustrations at the state as well. I hold no thought otherwise. Once again, I find it necessary to point out GCOE, I am a Constitutionalist, I do not sway to one side of an issue or another save this, the Constitutionality of the issue. You see GCOE, we are supposed to be a nation of laws, if that be the case, then we should be adhering to them !00% of the time. The citizens have been given the opportunity to voice one way or the other on issues via the electorate. May I suggest, as I always have, more like implored, the citizens to get involved. I'm sure you see a pattern in my thought process, the Constitution above all else, the rule of law.

I didn't say it couldn't be, I said I don't view it as such.

Well, this is where you and I go separate ways then. You see it as petty, I don't. I view this as a state in the union exercising it's Constitutional right. Remember Eleven, I'm a Constitutionalist, I have no dog in this fight since I am not a state citizen of Georgia. I see nothing wrong with what Georgia has done here, the law is legally bound by the Constitution. I can understand where people such as yourself would view this as crapping on the little guy, but the fight to maintain the Constitutions authority supersedes all else in my view, and others like myself. If this is a problem for people, then they shouldn't be angry at states like Georgia for exercising their rights, they should focus that anger at the Federal level, to those individuals who inked the law and failed to address the issue in this case. That, to me as a citizen in any event, is where the frustrations should be vented.

I understand that. But the States are not required to tell you about Federal programs. There is no law stating such that encompasses all Federal programs, there are however, laws in place that state information must be given from the federal level on down. I don't see that in the ACA, at least, I'm not aware of it in any event. So, the conservatives won't give the ACA information in Georgia, this is nothing new. Here is the information I found on an initial search. Mind you, it was just a google search and doesn't give specifics on the laws language. The Atlanta Journal: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/what-bills-made-the-cut-in-georgias-2014-legislati/nfJKj/ Here is a list of cuts at state levels, Georgia is in there: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1214 Here is a decent read on the situation when it was first brought about as HB707: http://benswann.com/breaking-georgia-legislators-vote-to-nullify-obamacare/ All in all, it would appear to me, in any event, that some of the states are pushing back on the ACA. This is nothing that wasn't to be expected. The Obama administration should have prepared for events such as this.

Not all of it, I'll go back and read it in it's entirety. I can't believe Georgia has the power to stop it's citizens from signing on to the ACA though. If Georgia is looking to shut down a state run health insurance program, I can't see the issue here. EDIT: Still don't see the issue. The state was given 1.7 million, they used it, then passed a law at the state level forbidding telling people without health care about the ACA. That may appear, at first glance, to be prejudice, but without knowing the reasons behind why the state passed this law I really can't draw a conclusion on solid fact. I can speculate however. But that is not fact. I could assume they don't want to spend state money on a federal program, or, conversely I could speculate that they have a prejudice against low income people. I'll dig in to the reasoning behind passing this law, then try and come back with what I find. Fair enough?

What's the big deal. The State of Georgia is shutting down a "state run" health care program and directing the people to the ACA. If you are for the ACA, you should be all for this.

I'm not positive, but isn't the 2nd rounder like the NJ situation? It's not Buffalo giving up theres, that is correct, no?

Excellent conversation recently, to bad a young man had to die in order for it to happen. But, this is the type of conversation people should most certainly be focused on here in America. As you all know, I hold firmly to the Constitution. There is trouble, right here in River City folks. I've been saying it since as far back as I can remember. The local, county, state and federal law enforcement branches of modern day America have gone well beyond just "keeping the peace". You don't arm "peace officers" en mass with armored vehicles, assault weapons and tactics of a military nature. You do those things for one purpose only, the suppression of the population at large. I don't care how anyone tries to slice it, dice it, cut it or skin it, that is the truth. I can stress enough just how important you are, all of you. You hold the highest title in this land, that of citizen. All you need do is assert your rights provided under the Constitution of the United States of America, and it forces these militant police agencies to back down. I realize it won't happen over night, and I'm fully aware more incidents of police misconduct, brutality and corruption will take place, but unless this nations citizens are willing to stand up for the rights afforded them, nothing will change and it will only embolden these agencies to go further in assaulting your rights. Freedom isn't free, will you stand with one another to make sure your rights are protected? Will you stand beside one another, black, white, red, yellow, pink with purple poke a dots and with all of your might, both physical as well as mental and protect that which so many in history have given all to ensure you have? Where do your loyalties lay, to a political party, to a situation or event in time? I say no, I say you reject that, your loyalties lay to that which binds us all and affords us the freedoms you are witnessing eroding. Your loyalties as a citizen lay with The Constitution of the United States of America, and as such, it is your solemn duty to ensure that not only your own rights are protected, but the rights of all.

I don't believe your judging him or his actions. I believe you truly care about the situation and are voicing an emotion, a concern if you will, of the situation. Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of some one taking their own life while having children, and, I'd like to believe nfreeman, that you give some emotion of yourself by expressing your concern for his loved ones. That is compassion, it shows a part or portion of your character as a human being in my opinion. And I for one, am more than content to see it, because to me in any event, compassion is one of the most important aspects of a human being attempting to live a life of good and purposeful intentions.

Bingo! I didn't even read the article, so I don't know the author, but you don't drop 300 million on a product and new building (purchase of the Sabres and the Harbor Center) without realizing that is a commitment to stay. WTH is this author talking about?

Winston Churchills "We must Arm" speech deals with much of what you speak of here. Armed instrumentalities, as President Woodrow Wilson called them, are not enough. They must be combined with the powers of Ideas. He was correct in my opinion. I consider Churchill to be one of the greatest orators in history. And his intellect wasn't to shabby either.

There is less than 8 of the golden age left now. Letterman doesn't fall into that category, but Eastwood, Wrikles, White, Sutherland and a very few others do. Williams is a tragic loss, such a great performer, made millions, including myself, laugh. It's as it always will be, one generation is now passed in almost entirety, the next is starting to see some losses.

Nicely done! You sir, have a most excellent mind.

I like the thought of Risto dominating, I just don't believe he'll be up with the big club until much later in the season to have any impact on the outcome. I take that 2nd over all pick 50% over a possible playoff birth. Getting drummed out in the 1st round doesn't feed my appetite much. Getting Eichel does.

The Video is very good. I like the confidence both exude. I hope Buffalo is fortunate enough to get one of them.

CNN reporting a secret untested serum has been used on the US patience. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/health/experimental-ebola-serum/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Also, on a side note, I found the stories I linked to the uncontacted South American tribes to be fascinating. Imagine what these people must think when they see planes, automobiles, hell, even indoor plumbing. At any rate, it appears as though one of the isloated tribes came in to a village asking for help as they were attacked by illegal loggers or a drug cartel. Simply fascinating, as I said. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2014/08/01/cnni-see-tribes-first-contact-with-outsiders.cnn&iref=allsearch&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fquery%3Dsouth%2Bamerican%2Btribe%2Bmakes%2Bcontact%26x%3D20%26y%3D8%26primaryType%3Dmixed%26sortBy%3Drelevance%26intl%3Dfalse

Welding is a good paying trade that I've yet to see the need for immigrants to fulfill. The same can be said of the other skilled trades I've seen. There isn't a need for immigrants in those fields, not when I see young Americans still awaiting responses from employers for those jobs. The skilled trades don't need to be bulked up at this time. In my field, electrical, particularly at the Industrial Electrician level, there are over 100,000 + workers currently out of work. It wasn't more than 2 years ago that applied for a journeyman's electrician job at a facility, when speaking to the recruiter, over 12,000 resumes and inquiries were received for 225 positions for a 6 month project. Immigration is not needed in the skilled trades area at this time, I can attest to that.

I agree with much of the sentiment here on the posts above. There is much truth in what has been posted with regards to education and the inability to find US citizens to do the agricultural work that is being done now. I make no claim that immigrants are not hard workers, illegal or legal, but, as has been pointed out, we've done that harm to ourselves on a larger scale. And I don't believe for one second all immigrants should go work in a field, that is ridiculous. I've met some very smart cats in construction that came from south of the border. But yes, In the end I do agree our youth has a feel for entitlement on certain issue and our system of education pushes the higher education to such an extent that labor does suffer and in turn, so does the way our children and childrens children view of the world, that is just my opinion however. I cannot shy away from my stance on these children coming to the country illegally however. Given I have the responsibility as a father, a grandfather, to ensure my families decedents have every opportunity with minimal impact from outside forces. As long as individuals of any age come here through the legal process, I not only have no problem with that, I support them. It is the law and it should be enforced, not only for my decedents future, but for all citizens decedents future. No one is advocating militarizing the border or building an actual wall. What many are saying is get the military up on the border as an immediate cessation to illegal border crossings until a large enough force for the Border Patrol can be trained and put in place. The ideal position is to utilize the military short term. And yes, if any individual attempts to cross the border, I am advocating you stop them, you don't need to gun them down to do so. They can be stopped without the use of deadly force, the military has the numbers to do it. I chuckled when someone above posted on covering the 2,000 mile long border and the number needed. You don't need 250,000 troops, that's nonsense. Go spend a day on the border, you'll see. The United States can apply immense pressure on Mexico as well, through tariff penalties and other measures in order to force responsibility on their end. Anyone who thinks they are an after thought is crazy to me and many others. Mexico is most certainly one of the keys to solving this issue on a broader scale. There must be accountability by all parties involved. Taro's comment on the bigger problem with the education system really did hit home to me. Your a well rounded thinker Taro. Many of you post on here that teaches myself a little something each day, but there are many subjects I am generally versed and many of you have more insight on. That comment was a very true statement you made. Understood, I didn't read it correctly, my bad. And yea, I don't know of any of the construction hands I worked with or witnessed working getting government benefits. I'm not aware of the situation in what is known as "the valley" in Texas, where many immigrants, legal and illegal settle and I don't know the numbers from the LA basin or the communities in between. However, I have seen the chaos the illegal immigrants have caused by using some one elses social security number. How would you respond to the American citizen who's done nothing to anyone but now finds their life in complete meltdown because someone else used their social security number to work in the US illegally? Also, in Lamar, Colorado, where I was working on a power plant expansion, the pregnancy rate went up a bit, and the fathers were illegals, how to you respond to Prowess County and the State of Colorado having to hand out benefits to children without having the ability to collect from the father because they just disappear? And there are other situations as well. The point is, you don't have to directly take from the benefit pool to adversely affect it. It's bad enough we have citizens of our nation doing so, there is no reason non citizens should be allowed to when they are here illegally and can be stopped from coming in the nation until properly documented.

Yea, with regards to debt, I just encompass the entire scenario under the guise of the balanced budget amendment statement. I already assume a set number annually would be given be it GDP, or, even on a sliding scale system such as income tax at one % rate, commercial at another, industrial and so on. There would most certainly be what you describe. How this ties into immigration for me is the amount of additional spending to address what GCoE was saying, open the border. That to me, in any event, is inviting disaster for the existing work force. I recently was looking for a second job to help increase some revenue in my household just over a year ago. I'm a skilled laborer with some management experience at 43 years old and it was quite the task finding a job. My nephew who just graduated from UB this past May is having an even harder time due to his lack of experience. A tough market right now. I won't agree with this. I worked as an industrial electrician for MMR Group, Triad Electric and Controls, KBR, Haliburton. Many illegals worked on many of the construction jobs I was on, they were sending over 3/4 of their earned income back to their native countries. Outside of income tax, federal always, state depending on where the job location was and that's about it. They lived 5 to 10 to an apartment and they weren't shopping at the local walmart as it was actually cheaper for their families back in their native countries to get the products they desired. Construction is a large employer of these individuals. The revenue generation did not equal what the loss to local economies through spending were, at least, in what I was witnessing. And those jobs could have been served by American youth, it wasn't as though no one wanted the jobs, but the labor they were hiring was hired at reduced rates as opposed to paying American youth. For example, as an apprentice electrician on these jobs, the illegals were getting paid 14 to 17 dollars an hour, depending on the job, the American apprentice electricians were getting 18 to 22 an hour. The pay fluctuates with the jobs of course and no construction job lasts forever, but, the main principle was the savings, considering these projects ran a 6 day 10 hour or 7 day 12 hour work schedule. That is an immense amount of money leaving the country when a project employs say 800 people and 400 of them are immigrants from south of the border. Like I said, I experienced it first hand, and, as a foreman on one job in Texas, I actually witnessed the replacement of US citizens by immigrants for cheaper labor rates. This goes on more than either you know, or like to admit. But I've seen a great deal of it.

The law you cited refers to trafficking, not immigration, there is a difference. These children are sent willingly for the most part, that is not trafficking in accordance with that laws definition. If that were the case, the debate wouldn't even be an issue. The article rightly points out the murder rate per capita, but doesn't specify children, therefore, is incomplete. Not that I do not acknowledge the dangers for those children, for the article rightly points out they are in large masses forced to make a choice. I'm not stating MS-13 isn't a bad seed organization, I'm pointing out that if in fact those numbers were put forth, it would be considered an international urgency. That's not happening on a large scale, and for a reason. Everyone is looking to the US to handle this, we can't. We don't control to a larger extent, what goes on south of our border. Now, if you were to ask me could we get more involved, my question to you would be........are you willing to sacrifice your childrens lives to do so. Because blood is going to be spilled, and longer term than many want to believe if we attempt to go and help straighten the situation out. There are realities here when it comes to this. I personally, am not interested in my children going to spill their blood in another country, to much of that has been done already. There are other ways to do it however, and that's open to discussion. I didn't state nor do I believe these children are a threat to my immediate safety or my families. I'm stating it opens a pandoras box. If we do it for central America, and those short term impacts on low skilled labor occur, it hinders our ability to come out of this negative economic flow. You just cannot simply mistreat American citizens and deny them employment for new arrivals, as I said, the government exists for the citizens, not others. That is clear in the Constitution. Sure growth stimulates tax rates and revenue, but they haven't solved the long term debt in this nation ever. A balanced budget amendment however, would go a long way to doing so, and that has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with stabilization. Countries with very small immigration influxes have proven this. I don't resist new immigration. I resist lawless immigration. There has to be a known definition of the 2. You simply cannot enact laws then decide to ignore them. That is not the foundation of this nation. As I repeatedly say, over and over again, we are supposed to be a nation of laws. If you don't like the laws, work within the defined system to change them, in the mean time, the laws should be upheld and for one very simple reason when it comes to immigration.............we have a process in place already to handle this. I understand your feelings on this GCoE, and as I've stated, it's a bad situation for the children. The fears I raise now about what you and others are proposing represent direct threats to my families safety, my children and grandchildrens birth right to have a government that works for them first and an over all ability to control the process by which individuals enter the country, be they looking for citizenship or not. I have to show my compassion to my future generations first, then I can express them to outside parties, and as of right now, I am very concerned about what the future holds for my future generations without adding additional burdens to them, be they short term or not. I'm not against increasing visas. Surprisingly, I support it as it allows a proper vetting process for documentation. Hell Taro, I'll even go so far as to say it should eventually lead to citizenship if the individuals show loyalty the Constitution. I do like the idea of increasing that number over time, but with the economy the way it is now, your asking to take on undue additional risk at this time.

I don't believe eithics or morality come in to play here considering the end result. If there were an outcome by which we could handle it, we wouldn't have an issue, but the very reason a portion of the US populace is voicing their concerns on this is particularly because of the financial situation. Some believe it's the fairness doctrine, immigrants get a leg up while US citizens have to pay taxes, others believe the existing laws already address these issues and should be enforced. The core principal among those that feel the way I do, for the most part, is that our past generations have worked extremely hard to put these systems in to place so that the existing citizens can be protected. The United States of America is not the United States of the Globe. The governments responsibility is to its citizens, not to the rest of the world, not when you consider that although this country has seen wealth financially in its time, its also seen hardships in its own right. As I said, there is a process in place in accordance with the "law". That is where the process should be used, not by amnesty or just turning a blind eye to sets of circumstances. After all, no one, not one person I've seen, has advocated that situations in the visa process would be turned away without at least a process in place. And no, we aren't loved the world over, contrary to that belief. My friends still in the military and those that travel will tell you that there are many places around the world where we aren't liked, let alone loved.

While I can appreciate this information, Canada is not 17 trillion dollars in debt while running a defecit of roughly 1 trillion a year, the US is. This is apples to oranges. The US is tasked with global responsibilities that Canada quite frankly couldn't imagine handling with it's budgetary situation. Canadian citizens do not feel the burden of those responsibilities on remotely near the same scale as US citizens via budget concerns. There is a huge difference here. We are being asked to take the globe on our shoulders, the simple truth is, it would collapse us. Indeed, it already is.

First- yes, they get due process, and after that will be sent back. The current law says nothing about Central American children, it applies to all. Regardless of where these children are from, we must secure the borders, both north and south. If you honestly believe I'm going to listen to anyone while my own life and the lives of my family are at risk due to terrorism, your dead wrong, secure the border, no one gets in without the proper law abiding process. It's that simple and because of that process, these children wouldn't have the proper documents to cross the border. We always elevate children regardless of where they are from, no one is saying do not feed or shelter them. MS-13, while a brutal drug gang, is not, in point of fact, slaughtering thousands of children. Mexico has more cartel violence. Sorry, but I won't allow individuals such as yourself to put me and my family at undue risk. Not going to happen. That is mere common sense, this has nothing to do with compassion, send them money if you wish. Second - No, we can't take them all in. Your wrong on that account. You'd like to think we can, but the reality is this will put a heavy strain on our nations financial resources at a time when it's more than obvious we are a still in deep trouble economically. How you can make the statement immigration leads to very strong economic growth is beyond me considering the amount of individuals out of work in this nation already, that is mind blowing that you believe that. As for political affiliation, yes, this is a voter demographic move by the President, make no mistake. It has been for some time for Democrats. But hey, don't let the "if our message and platform don't win us elections so we'll just buy them by allowing new voters to come in by breaking the law" type of atmosphere stop you from supporting these children. After all, I wouldn't want America to be seen as a nation of laws. Third- you are incorrect sir. As a student at the United States NTC facility in San Diego, California I was sent with my unit at the time after given SP training to assist border patrol efforts along the border. I was a US military member. Active Duty. The President can send troops to assist in securing the border and it has historical precedence as well. Money is already being spent for DOD, there would be no additional funds needed, existing units can do the job. It is irrelevant if it's a civil or criminal offense the bottom line is, it's against the law. No one is advocating we incarcerate them when they come over as a criminal when they do come over. What is being said is to prevent them from coming over and use the process properly. We have a visa program in place that covers many facets for reasons, it's the law. I understand you sympathize with these children, hell, I do. It's a crappy situation to live in a 3rd world country where there is real issues such as these children face, but central America is not the only place on the planet with these issues. African children in some countries face far worse, yet, I do not see plane loads of children on their way here, same with some nations in south Asia. You cannot seriously be considering opening this pandoras box.

Yes, they can ask for asylum, that is correct. But they must be on US soil to do so. They cannot ask for asylum standing on the Mexican side of the border. The point I was making is that they must be on US soil to do this. You prevent that by stopping them before they reach US soil. And asylum cases are tough, much tougher than many know. You cannot simply show up at the border and claim asylum due to violence in your home country, not when the US does not recognize the central American gangs as a humanitarian crises in their own nations. There has to be precedent set, and so far, that hasn't been done. If that does, I can assure you, that will unlock Pandora's Box on the southern US border. The larger picture is this, we cannot take in all of these people, children or not. It will put such a massive strain on resources at all levels of governments where the affected areas will be. Simply printing more money or expanding the deficit spending is beyond foolish given the debt we are currently running. If Obama allows these children to stay, you will see hundreds of thousands more start there journey's to the border. There is a larger situation at play here. There may appear to be many already, but that number will be dwarfed if any of these cases stand as allowed to stay. This is a bad situation. They need to secure the border, period. As for your Cuban question, political asylum from a communist state. And not all have been allowed to stay. Not to mention, the Florida Straits are a hazard for the journey that keeps the numbers significantly low when you compare it to what could happen if the wrong signal is sent to the land tied central American countries. There is literally nothing to stop a massive flow of people to begin to head north and hit the border in massive waves. It is the responsibility of the President to stop this before it starts by securing the border and enforcing existing laws. But it all starts with his duty to secure the border.