HopefulFuture

Incorrect. They United States currently recognizes no known situations for refugees from central America. Border crossings do not let you in with out passport or visa, period. It is not the job of the border crossings to make decisions on allowing refugees in or not. They cannot, by law, allow anyone in to the United States without the appropriate documents. My cousin is a Border Patrol Agent on the Arizona Border. I'll have him post on here in the next day or so to let you know what they have been ordered to do, which is apply the current laws. All current children worked the refugee status only after they landed on US soil. If you research, you'll find Mexico has to setup camps for the children on their side of the border as well, for those that aren't fortunate enough to make it across the border. You simply cannot walk up to a border entrance point and declare refugee status, that is not how it works. You'll be turned away. Correct, they are turning themselves in to Border Patrol Agents "after" entering US soil illegally. That is not refugee status, that is illegal immigration. As I said, the existing laws on the books should apply, send them back to their respective nations to properly apply for visas at our embassies and consulates. As for the border, secure it immediately. Every bit of it.

It may be, but I think it has to do with bypassing Congress via the executive orders, and hence not faithfully executing his office. To the bolded, this is not true. Not one individual has turned themselves in at border crossings as refugees. They were all already illegally in the United States, they had already crossed the border, then turned themselves in. Coyotes don't bring them to the border crossings, they wouldn't dare.

One is not synonymous with the other. The Executive Branch is currently tasked with securing our borders from illegal entry through existing laws. All the President need do is send troops to the borders to secure them. It's that simple. Implying that the law suit brought by the speaker on the president over stepping his authority in certain areas has nothing to do with this issue. That is creating a red herring and is what political hacks do. Congress SHOULD NOT pass anything until the borders are secure and the illegal entry to the nation is stopped. The flow must cease. Whether or not you like to admit the truth, it's a major strain on our resources as a government, at local, state and the federal level. As for the illegal immigrants already here, the law is already clear. The President of the United States is neglecting his duty and is not fit to hold the office, he should be impeached immediately. And I mean that. He is not upholding the very oath he took to execute his office "FAITHFULLY"!!!!!!!!! That includes immigration. The bottome line is it's his job to secure the border already, he refuses to do so because he is building up the Democratic parties voting base for the future. In short, he's making decisions for political reasons and that is in direct violation of everything this country is supposed to stand for. Law and Order. If we truly are a nation of laws, then this wouldn't even be an issue, but Americans refuse to stand up for what the country was founded on. It wasn't founded on or by immigration, it was founded on the principals of law! The others are just bi-products of those laws. Sorry, but I'm calling a spade a spade on this one. And it's been going on for a long time, not just recently. Look at the Irish immigrants from the 1859 to 1865 period, when the Union needed soldiers, they got them, right off the boats. So, the real question is this, what are you, as a citizen, prepared to do about your Presidents failure to faithfully execute the duties given to him? Are you going to contact your representative and voice your displeasure at this? I have, have you?

I'm telling PETA on you :P All of those thousands of stray dogs in Detroit, your putting them at risk with a plan like that :D

Well put. As a Christian, Jesus death was a critical part of my upbringing. Not so much the place where it occurred but more to the point it's meaning. He died for our sins is what I was taught. That has the significance, at least, to me as a Christian. We are imperfect beings us humans. As for the city itself, several times throughout it's history it was an open city for all 3 of the big religions to come and worship, but those times were very short and didn't last. Ironic that the big 3 religions all see Jesus as a major player in them and all he spoke on was to love one another. We, as a species, don't appear to be very good listeners, at least, not of his message in any event.

I know. there is something to be said about the greatest generation, they towed the line. There was actually at one time a reverence for intellect in our children in this nation. Some say the 60's free love era changed that, others say the brat pack era of the 80's did. But, at some point and time in our modern history, partying and social life became the main way to garner recognition amongst the youth, at least, over education. Suddenly, it was hip to smoke that joint, snort that line, take that pill, binge drink that beer, light that pipe or stick that needle in your arm. Children focused on being the best in school in grade point average were called nerds, geeks or other names. That needs to change. Maybe the millennium kids are changing it now to some extent, but hell, I haven't been in public school for over 25 years now. What I saw going through the 80's was a great deal of partying and picking on of the kids that did apply themselves.

Well, I don't disagree with you there. But throwing more money at education won't cut it alone. These modern day parents need to step up be a much larger part of the educational process to ensure their children tow the line. No matter how much money you throw at education, if a childs environment outside of the class room doesn't have parental involvement you may as well put the single bullet in the revolver and start laying bets. The modern day educational funding isn't the problem, students understanding that they are in a very competitive world and need to work extremely hard to maintain an edge on the competition is. Party on Garth Generation aren't exactly towing the line for their part, and that starts at home.

Your incorrect. I don't dislike the attempt to nationalize health care, I'm actually a proponent of it, as a conservative, yes, I am. Only, I'm interested in single payer, it's the common sense way to go. Half assing a program the way the Dems did is not the way to do it and she defended that half assing. The core of it is the lying. As a member of a body of our government that should "represent the people", I fully expect the individuals that serve in those positions to be honest, ethical and inform the American People of what it is exactly they are voting on. A statement such as the one she made and other areas where she lies or dances around issues, such as immigration and border security, won't cut it. She's a hack of the worst kind, and she's not alone, they are on both sides of the aisle. EDIT: and the only reason she was effective was because the Dems controlled the chamber at that time. since the Repubs took the house, she doesn't seem so effective now, does she. Bingo! I did it intentionally, chicken = no balls or spine. Pelosi has shown she doesn't have the spine to stand up and be honest with the American People. Not that I disagree with Newt being an obstructionist, but he and Clinton were the main catalysts that brought on the 08 disaster. And I'm deadly serious about this. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The players from both parties crossed the isle to stick a big dick in the ass of the American people. This 2 party system sucks ass and is the worse thing for the American people.

Irrelevant. Growth at these poultry numbers aren't even close to what is needed to address the coming currency crises, the current debt and deficit situations and the looming raise in interest rates with inflation as the fed nears ending the QE programs. That number is not going to cut it, not even close. Higher taxes on the wealthy need to return to 1950's level. Of course, this won't help either as in the 50's those individuals found shelters in investing in rebuilding most of the industrialized world at the time that had been destroyed by WW2, mainly western Europe. They don't have that luxury in this day and age. So, we take that 91% from the over 1 million earners (it was 100,000 in the 50's), then we cut services, bye bye obamacare, so long pork spending, see ya all discretionary spending, NSA spying on Americans? Not anymore and cut the IRS down to size. Only essential defense of nation, social security, medicare and a handful of social programs such as the CDC. Cut all government salaries in half immediately and put them all on non matching 401K's. That's a start.

Pelosi did a fine job? She blatantly lied to the American people on the ACA and continued to do so on multiple main stream media sources. They tore her to shreds on it over and over again. I mean, she actually made the statement that we have to enact the law to find out what is in it.................really? No man, seriously.........REALLY? She's an idiot. We should have sent her to Guam with the 8,000 marines, then Johnsons question on capsizing may have been relevant, considering all the ###### that would have gone with her.

LOL, well, just goes to show you what Americans vote in to office. It was rather sad actually, not only that assertion but the way he attempts to articulate the conversation. Instead of saying 7 miles at it's least widest point, why not just say 7 miles at it's narrowest point? I mean, I realize you don't need to speak as though you are asking for Grey Poupon, but you would think with the time constraints at times given to these representatives to either formulate a debate via questions or comments, the citizens who vote for them in their respective districts would account for their communication skills.

Good point on the docs and protection.

carpandean said it. I've stated it to, earlier in this thread, when individuals were touting how it could not be done. It can be done, because, as you rightly pointed out, the military is us. I am a vet, and I would imagine there are others on here that are as well. I still have friends, close friends, in the military. I've stated before, not one of them would lift arms against their own citizens. It's not the core part of the conversation, but an interesting side bar note to be sure. Like the 60's and early 70's, many of those I served with feel betrayed by the lies on Iraq. I'm actually very surprised more of the nations populace hasn't demanded justice on this. That shows me the powers that be have grown emboldened by the lack of response on an issue such as this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, George Bush and his henchmen should have been detained, charged, tried and convicted for not only treason but crimes against humanity and then stretched by their necks at the base of the Washington Monument on an international televised broadcast. Let the entire world, not only our own citizens, see that we stand for justice for all.

:lol: :clapping:

Background checks and safety locks are not infringing on the right to bare arms. These are safety mechanisms that are or should be a part of the process. Let's not confuse the issue. EDIT: And I should note, the 2nd amendment conversation has dealt specifically with whether or not that right is an individuals as opposed to other definitions. Safety protocol's put in place with lessons learned in the larger scope of society should not constitute an infringement to ownership for law abiding citizens, but merely should be looked at as a part and parcel of the responsibilities for those citizens when owning a fire arm. DOUBLE EDIT: And you didn't address the concerns I listed organizationally. Tyranny was always at the forefront of the minds of the founders. After all, they had just cast off one form of tyrannical government, the laws they put in to place were to ensure another form couldn't emerge. The right to bare arms is as much about defense against domestic aggression as it is about foreign aggression. The core founders were very vocal about this and their fears appear to be well founded given the extent to which the executive branch has given unto itself immense power. And not just in recent times, but throughout the nations history.

There are many examples of a system such as this being used as a tool against a specific group or portion of the general public, and right here in America. See: IRS, NSA for example. But those are 2 of the obvious ones. The only paranoia I see are from those that fight to infringe our rights. Everyone else I see as patriots, at least, within the realm of common sense.

Completely agree. My bad on the wording. It does fit better given the historical context. Hey, what can I say, I'm learning as I go as well :P

Thank you LG, and yes, that is the scene I was referencing. Sorry if it seems so simplistic in it's nature, but there is a valuable lesson in the comments made in the scene. And yes, I realize writers of a TV mini-series wrote those words, but in the end, it's the deliverance of those words in such a powerful, pointed way that should make every American stop and give pause to thought for a moment. There need not be a major over haul of this nations founding principals if we, as a society in whole, stand up and say "I'm made and I'm not going to take it anymore". There is power in truth. There is great power when you find yourself living your lives by a set of "ehtics" (that's for you GCOE, and it does fit) that not only makes your government accountable to us all, but it makes you, the individual, accountable to yourself, your community and the larger collective of our nation merely by staying informed with the truth. As difficult as this may seem in today's society given the information available for the most part is beholding to the powers that be, there are channels of information out there which will give you the truth, it's up to all of us, as people, as brothers and sisters, as "CITIZENS" to hunt that truth down and make our decisions accordingly. So I ask you, all of you, turn off your Fox News, turn off your MSNBC, turn on your brains and seek that which you justly and rightly deserve as citizens, THE TRUTH. That starts with communication, with your government, with your representatives, with your fellow citizens. Ask the hard questions and demand nothing less than the complete and honest truth in the answers. For it is you, it is me, it is all of us that are represented by the decisions they make. Do not go quietly into that good night, do not go without a fight. Take what once was right that has gone wrong, and make it right again. No matter how hard or over whelming the task may seem. It is responsibility, your birth right...........it is your duty. For each of you that are US citizens, you hold the highest title in the land, that of citizen, do not sit idly by while these obscene miscarriages of justice and vile lies of right and wrong take place. Speak up, let your voice be heard, and let that voice resound throughout the land. I can plead no more, I lay may case before the message board in it's entirety and leave it to each of you to decide whether or not I've stirred enough within you to muster the courage to do so.

I think Adam's is the future coach of the Amerks. So much history for such a solid AHL player, it's meant to be.

While I agree completely, I also believe it's gone far beyond the "if we return manufacturing everything will be fine" phase. The debt is now at a point where it is insurmountable in my opinion. It will never be paid off. Ever. It is past the tipping point now in my humble opinion. At some point and time, especially as the new Asian Rim economies continue their march to the top, it's going to collapse, like a house of cards. I'm not so concerned about others calling in the I.O.U. cards, I'm much more concerned about what you pointed to here, purchasing power and where that power is headed.

Both GCOE and Swamp have nailed it. I'm no conspiracy theory nut, but the QE's have not solved the under-lying problems with the economy. The next collapse, that of the dollar, is very real as other powers boost their currencies. I would suspect martial law has not only been a plan in practice, i.e. training exercises, but that the powers that be are preparing to use them in the event of a major currency collapse. Of course, this is my guess on the situation.

Sure, that can be done :)

I wouldn't want the 2nd amendment severed. Give these hard core wingers any opportunity and they'll run it into the ground, and that's on both sides of the aisle. As for the states, they already have some ability to regulate, the registration system you mention is one of those tools in that category. The broader picture itself, I see it as it is. We were founded on a set of core principals that were of moral standing, the slave question not withstanding of course. Comprises had to be made and that was one of the core ones. But, that put aside, because it was addressed ultimately, through great sacrifice, not only at the time, but of the decades in between the implementation of the Constitution and the 13th amendment. No, that put aside for a moment, the real problem I see is the moral degradation of the nation as a whole. There is something to be said about this. We were founded on Christian principals to be sure, but there were other principles as well. Fairness, Justice and the ability to control ones own destiny. The public education system, which I've spoken on at times in this thread, is an unwitting accomplice to that degradation. We simply fail to teach future generations not only the laws they live under, but the principals by which it is critical they need to be involved in the process, and not only from the voting age on, but from early years of life to death. The only way this grand experiment works is with an educated, honestly and well informed, citizenry. I beckon back to a video clip I caught of Jeff Daniels in a show called "The News room" I believe. It's opening scene, where he lays it out to a college student is dead on correct. In particular, I focus in on his comments on how the nation was great once because we were informed by men, great men who were revered. As I've stated in the past, not a truer statement have I seen to date. The gun debate, the foreign policy debate, domestic policy, immigration and a host of other issues, it all falls back to that principal to me. An educated society is the founding necessity for any viability to retain freedoms. And I'm not speaking of college or university education here. The "well I have a degree in this" type mentality means crap to me. For myself, it comes down to putting it all on the line to understand that who we were is as equally as important as who we are and whom we are going to be as a people. And that starts with morals.

I agree. This conversation has been a long one GCOE. I am torn, I firmly believe in the right to bare arms, but, I also believe in the individuals right to feel free of harm. These assault weapons are a prime example. But then, the courts have decided that the gov't can control to some extent, the ability of this situation. That is why I defend the NRA, while at the same time, I defend the common sense of the situation. We are not a healthy society when an individual can come in and gun down 30, 40 or 50 people, but in the same token, we cannot allow ourselves to be disarmed.

This is not entirely true. As was directly discussed in all of the colonies ratifying conventions of the constitution, the 2nd amendment was to put weapons in the hands of individuals, either locally, through the militia, or "in defense of themselves" Quotes you should read from the founders themselves, many of which, site the militia's at the local and state level, not the states alone and many of which warn against standing armies and use Europe's tyrranical systems as example of unarmed citizenry's and their inability to cast off their own governments abuses. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html Many of the founders are forgotten because of the lack of name recognition, men like Roger Sherman, who specifically states in the 1790 militia bill debate that the private citizen has the right to bare arms. It is a false hood to believe the founders only believed the 2nd amendment constituted militias at the behest of states. It's revisionist history in it's most ignorant state. The founders clearly believed the right to bare arms was individual, not at merely armed bodies of men, but individual men. This nonsense of trying to state other wise is ridiculous.