pastajoe

Once they turn themselves in and ask for asylum, the law says they cannot be returned to their countries until after their case has been reviewed by a judge and are deemed not eligible for asylum. It is different than if they originated in Mexico. That is why Obama asked for funding for additional judges to expedite the process. And why are Cubans who make it to US soil allowed to stay? Seems like a double standard.

To clarify, I should have said border patrol agents.

It's always been an issue of not if, but when.

The current border crisis does not involve illegal aliens. Under the law passed by Congress, they are refugees. And they are freely turning themselves in to border guards for processing. But there are so many that it is overwhelming the local resources. Obama asked Congress to modify the law so they could be sent back to their countries quicker, and for funding to pay for additional shelter, border agents, and judges who could rule on their status quicker. But as usual, the Republicans would rather do nothing, and confuse people with their rhetoric, as it seems some here are. Other than ordering children shot if they cross the border, I don't know what else the complainers want. Obama's following the law.

Well there was the case where George Washington died after he had about 35% of all the blood in his body drained over 12 hours to "cure" him, when in fact he needed a tracheotomy to help him breath due to a swollen epiglottis.

Don't these people watch movies? A careless intern is going to open the wrong door, and next thing you know we have a zombie apocalypse.

I don't think the founders envisioned a minority group like the Tea Party preventing legislation that a majority of Congress, the President, and a majority of Americans want, such as comprehensive immigration reform that would pass in the House if brought to a vote. Or even what the Republicans themselves call a border crisis. The Republicans scream for Obama to do something, he asks that the refugee law be changed and for Congress to provide funds to deal with the immediate problem, and the Republicans then vote against the bill intended to help with the problem they're complaining about. And now they're going home to campaign for 5 weeks in gerrymandered districts to say how it's Obama's fault, but not before voting to sue Obama for taking actions because they won't do anything to solve problems. The height of hypocracy.

So now we get to the real issue, you think she was bad because she helped pass bills that you don't like. That doesn't make her ineffective, actually just the opposite. She had a great record of getting bills passed, and that is the main role for a Speaker. I didn't like many of the bills passed under Gingrich, but I will admit he was effective for his constituents like Pelosi was.

Pelosi did a fine job as Speaker, and was able to lead the majority in passing alot of bills that became law. Unlike the current Speaker who is subjugated to the Tea Partiers and can't get anything done.

Sounds like our Congress. Well, if you could convince Hamas to agree that Israel should exist, and get them to stop lobbing rockets into Israel, it would remove the necessity for Israel to intercede in Gaza, and would give the Palestinians the moral high ground.

Owning a gun doesn't make you a patriot. This obsession over owning numerous high caliber weapons not designed for hunting because you fear the gov't is coming after you is paranoia.

The Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of the Army inside the US.

I don't frequent areas where there's gang bangers, but I do frequent shopping centers, live a couple miles from a gun club where I hear gunfire from, and there's a group in the area called the Patriot League that promotes the same type of anti-govt, pro gun talk as in this thread. So I'm more likely to be around those looney people who envision the black helicopters coming for them.

I want the police to be better armed than any threat they may face. I don't worry about terrorists or gang bangers using a gun on me, the more likely scenario that worries me is a looney tune doomsday prepper or someone who is against any gun restrictions using a gun because someone took their parking spot, talked during a movie, or didn't like the hoodie you're wearing. The police run towards the gunfire, not away from it, and I trust them to do that job to protect us.

Saw a story about a family that got bumped off the flight. If they got on the flight, maybe the plane takes off a few minutes early or late, and it maybe doesn't get tracked as a target. Butterfly effect.

You say you want to leave the country, and I'm stupid?

I'll buy you a one way ticket if you renounce your citizenship. Go move somewhere with "your people".

I'd like to know what the complainers think a secure border should look like. Should we station troops every 50 yards with instructions to shoot them if they cross some invisible line in the sand? Desperate people are not going to be deterred by a fence. The president is doing what he can given the current laws and funding. Don't like it, get Congress to change the laws and increase funding, both of which Obama has asked for.

Rome may be burning, but we're doing OK in the US. Economy improving, unemployment down, getting out of two wars. The border is secure, if it wasn't we wouldn't be catching all those people trying to come in. We don't have socialized medicine, most of it is covered by private insurers. And the only people obsessing over homosexuals are conservatives. Everyone else says, who cares, let them do what they want.

Stafford had a good season in a contract year, got a big payoff, and has been inconsistent since. I fear Moulson will do the same. I didn't like the 5 year contract.

Me neither. If a guy has one fight, the other team can now target him for cheap shots without fear of him retailiating. And guys will try to knock off opponents helmets when the refs not looking.

Moulson probably played with the better offensive players on the Sabres, while Ott played against the other teams better offensive players. For what they do, I'd rather pay to see Ott play. I'm afraid Moulson might turn into another Stafford.

Would rather have had Ott than Moulson, at least he was entertaining as they lost. My favorite player after Kaleta got his pee pee slapped by the league and team.

And Utica. But if you look at distances, Bham is closer to Penn teams, Alb/Adk are closer to New England, and Roc-Syr-Utica are close to Canada. Just switch Syr and Adk and it would make sense.

Roc-Syr have been in different divisions for years, but they're still scheduled to play a bunch of games, as well as some against Utica. Now the Crunch's closest div team is Albany. It would be so sensible to just swap the Crunch and Flames. The Crunch owner is from NYC, perhaps he thinks fans want to see the players from the 3 NY-NJ teams.