USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Commando84 0]

but then the blame is on the citizens for voting them in

Correction, blame the citizens whom voted them in.

@General Barron:

that's awesome, its about time somebody stands up to our out of control federal government.

Isn't it time for the goverment to act to help the people and not just pat the big companies backs like the goverment did under GB?  

I don't think Obama can do worse..  

There is a new sheriff in town and he's gonna put 'em wall street people to justice.  

being a ceo its in america or so, now its time to make a run and leave the country

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Thought you might find this article interesting. Pretty much sums it all up for me  link

Yup, that article pretty well sums it up. +1. If more people read that, they would be pretty scared about what is going on too.

Quote[/b] ]

On the question what to do about Mark to Market?

Answer it is not a political issue, we do not legislate accounting, does the market really want accounting to be legislated by 600 plus politicians?

Uh... I'm sorry, I really don't think this is true. Ever heard of the SEC?

I could be wrong on this, but I thought that publicly traded companies were regulated by the SEC, and they had to adhere to specific accounting rules. Hence the scandal when we have companies like Enron that are "cooking the books". If they were allowed to use whatever accounting rules they wanted, then there wouldn't have been any legal issues with Enron.

Quote[/b] ]Isn't it time for the goverment to act to help the people and not just pat the big companies backs like the goverment did under GB?

You are aware that it was a Democrat controlled congress that passed all the Bush bailouts, right? I wonder, do you assign any blame to them? After all, the president can't actually enact legislation. So ultimately it was CONGRESS that passed the bailouts. A congress controlled by democrats.

Quote[/b] ]I don't think Obama can do worse..

To be honest, I used to think that was true. But every day that goes by, it is proven wrong. We now have the largest deficit in history, and more spending and entitlements are coming down the pipe.

We can't afford the Bush entitlement spending (the prescription drug plan), and he was supposedly a "conservative". Now Obama is using fear-mongering to railroad legislation through congress. I shudder to think of the kind of entitlement spending he is going to commit us to.

So, let me see... we already can't afford the government we have, even if we raise taxes to the max. On top of this, we have a new president who wants to dramatically increase the size of government. Common sense tells me this isn't possible.

Luckily, you don't need the facts to get elected. People only care about the short term; the "what's in it for me" factor. Obama and the greedy, selfish people who voted him in are going to bankrupt the nation.

Please, if you philosophically believe in government entitlement programs... please show me the NUMBERS, on how it is POSSIBLE for us to have more such programs. Everyone loves to talk about what they think the government should do... but few people want to look at the reality of what it CAN do.

From where I stand, the numbers do NOT add up. Prove me wrong.

[Akira 0]

Nordic social states don't seem to have a problem with it...and they run a surplus (generally) and go around cancelling debt on 3rd world countries because they weren't in "good faith" for development.

It isn't necessarily how much you spend...it's HOW you spend it.

My two cents.

[General Barron 0]

Nordic social states don't seem to have a problem with it...and they run a surplus (generally)

Fine. I'd LOVE to see the democrats proposing a balanced budget that might turn into a surplus.

Better yet, let's just pass a law FORCING congress to do just that. My state has such a law (of course, it took a citizen's initiative, the legislature would never do such a thing). If we don't force the hand of congress, they will never balance the budget. It is more politically beneficial for them to put everything on credit. After all, they aren't running for re-election 10-20 years from now, when all their programs are actually paid for.

Does anyone else find it completely unethical and undemocratic for us to spend the money of future taxpayers? I mean, my nephews are too young to vote, yet we are literally giving them a bill for our current spending. Honestly, I find this to be selfish and morally disgusting. It is taxation without representation. This should be illegal.

Obama was saying he would have a balanced budget ("pay as you go") when he was campaigning. To be honest, I almost voted for him on that basis. Even though I wouldn't agree on what that budget should contain, I'd prefer that over deficits.

Good thing I didn't vote for him, because his actions are showing that he is worse than Bush.

Obama lied!

[MehMan 0]

Oh come on. Drastic measures are needed since situation requires. Also give him some time, you can't do it all in less than a month.

And your trillions of dollars of debt that Obama is going to cause turned out to be false, since it wasn't obama who said it but was just talk in the senate.

This is a situation that was allowed by the bush administration, it's easy to screw things up, but a lot harder to fix them. if you think that you can get out of this mess without any sort of payment you're foolish. Just wait a bit before declaring Obama an evil dictator because he's actually seeing that he needs to act fast. The majority of the new aid package is tax cuts.

jeez...

[Akira 0]

I'll agree that it is a little ridiculous to ride Obama for a problem he inherited. It's also equally ridiculous to start judging a Presidency a month into it.

However, I will also agree that it is ridiculous the way our government is run. Sam Adams would have half of us to the British barracks by now back in the day. We denounce "dictators" that make measures making them able to "run for life" while we allow the same thing in our representation, completely cutting accountablility out of the equation.

Not sure how old half you all are, but I've been around long enough to pretty much give up on this country. You'll never get enough outrage on a national level to affect any kind of meaningful change. The political organism is constructed just for that reason.

So if I lack the adequate outrage regarding spending and taxation, it may be because I'm secretly hoping it all does come crashing around our ears, that we all do go into a Depression to make the Great Depression look like a picnic, that 200 million (including myself) go unemployed, that people's TV's stop working. Because maybe then that will shake enough people up to make some meaningful revolutionary change that will alter 1) how we view each other, and 2) we properly prioritize all this consumer sh*t we seem compelled to buy, and 3) how governments that are suppose to be "for the people" will actually be FOR THE PEOPLE and run BY THE PEOPLE.

I think that is my four cents that time.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is a situation that was allowed by the bush administration, it's easy to screw things up, but a lot harder to fix them.

Please, give me the specifics. What specifically did the Bush administration do, and how exactly did that cause the current situation?

And, while your at it, can you explain to me how this situation is different from a normal market cycle? That actually brings me to my second point:

Quote[/b] ]Oh come on. Drastic measures are needed since situation requires.

...

if you think that you can get out of this mess without any sort of payment you're foolish.

Really? Tell me how this situation is not just a part of the business cycle.

What is so special about this recession, that somehow the business cycle no longer applies?

You sound like one of the people who were talking about the "new economy" in the late 90's. Like it or not, there are boom and bust cycles in all industrialized economies. The government can't stop the bust, because the bust is caused by the boom. But no politician gets elected by saying they are going to put the brakes on during boom times. The government does the exact opposite. They hit the gas, all the time, which causes bigger booms, and then bigger busts.

Right now we are fighting the inevitable. Housing prices must go down because we more houses then we need. We expanded too fast, and now we are coming back down to how things really should be. The fact is, we aren't as rich as we hoped. Obama and the government is trying to sell you a lie.

edit

Quote[/b] ]

You'll never get enough outrage on a national level to affect any kind of meaningful change. The political organism is constructed just for that reason.

Again, this is why we should support states rights. You know, like the country was originally supposed to be: with a small federal government when compared to the state governments.

Take a look at Obama's "stimulus". How much stuff in there should be a state issue, not a federal one? Since when is education a federal issue? Wake up people. The federal government can only have power if it takes that power away from the states. Every dollar the federal government spends is a dollar taken from the pocket of the states and the people. So we don't get "more" education by making it a federal issue, we just get less control over it. Tell Obama to stick to the constitution, and give us back our rights!

[General Barron 0]

I'm secretly hoping it all does come crashing around our ears, that we all do go into a Depression to make the Great Depression look like a picnic, that 200 million (including myself) go unemployed...

Btw this is a pretty damn sick thing to hope for. How can you claim to care about people, when you are "secretly" hoping for massive misery and death? I wouldn't wish this kind of thing on anyone, which is why I'm trying to show people how to prevent it.

I seriously hope you are kidding, because, if not, I'm afraid I'd have to call your character into question, to put it lightly.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, this is why we should support states rights. You know, like the country was originally supposed to be: with a small federal government when compared to the state governments.

Take a look at Obama's "stimulus". How much stuff in there should be a state issue, not a federal one? Since when is education a federal issue? Wake up people. The federal government can only have power if it takes that power away from the states. Every dollar the federal government spends is a dollar taken from the pocket of the states and the people. So we don't get "more" education by making it a federal issue, we just get less control over it. Tell Obama to stick to the constitution, and give us back our rights!

Since when is education a state issue? Why should the states be allowed to dictate their own curriculum? We're not dealing with state's right's here, we're are dealing with a child's education in the global econonmy. You think it is fair (for example) for children in Kansas to only learn about creationism and the history of the world in terms of the Bible? You really think that is going to make their future bright in regard to the global job market when competing against say Europe or other states? Then what do you do when thousands of those adults are without jobs because all they learned was the Bible?

EDIT: It also sounds like you are talking about state's rights like the Articles of Confederation or something, which as we all know died a horrible death. We are not dealing with 50+ individuals making up their own rules in a loose binding governmental structure. We are talking about one country made up of 50+ sub-units. If you want more state's rights, why be in a country? Make your own Nation of Arkansas (or whatever). I guess I am unclear as how far you want state's rights and how far you want federal government. Perhaps you can outline it, and don't reference the Constitution (as there are different interpretations and will get us no where).  

Quote[/b] ]Btw this is a pretty damn sick thing to hope for. How can you claim to care about people, when you are "secretly" hoping for massive misery and death? I wouldn't wish this kind of thing on anyone, which is why I'm trying to show people how to prevent it.

I seriously hope you are kidding, because, if not, I'm afraid I'd have to call your character into question, to put it lightly.

You can call into question what you wish, as is your right, and I stand by what I said. Sometimes it takes drastic failure's (and misery and death as you say) for people to see that their current government is 1) not working for them and 2) an economic system based on "what can I get for myself and screw everyone else" ain't exactly the way to go. Where banks and big business get more consideration from the government than the people...

And I find your

Quote[/b] ]which is why I'm trying to show people how to prevent it

line equally telling, as your way is the only way to do it. Course, we are all probably guilty of this infraction in this thread (and I'm talking about going all the way back to some of the orginal threads...).

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Since when is education a state issue?

Until Bush's "no child left behind" act made it a federal one. Colleges are established and funded at a state level. k-12 education is done at a mixture of state and local level.

Good god, is this really what's happened to us as a country? Are you really telling me you didn't know it was traditionally a state issue? Is there anything that you think is a state issue?

Quote[/b] ]You think it is fair (for example) for children in Kansas to only learn about creationism and the history of the world in terms of the Bible?

...

I guess I am unclear as how far you want state's rights and how far you want federal government. Perhaps you can outline it, and don't reference the Constitution (as there are different interpretations and will get us no where).  

I'm not sure how to put this...

Look at things numerically. If you are voting in a pool of 100 voters, how much does your vote count in the election? Now, what if you are voting in a pool of 100 million voters? Your vote just got 1 million times less important.

I don't know if you've ever lived outside the US, but one thing I noticed from doing so is that we are a really, really big country. We have some 300 million people. Most other countries seem to be a tenth that size. That means voters have 10 times more say in their government in those other countries.

Now, the concerns you express are basically along the lines of "what if the other states don't do it right". To me, that sounds very controlling. You don' want to let other states have their say in issues that you wouldn't agree with, even though you aren't living in those states. If that is truly how you feel, then you must also realize that the reverse will be true. There will be times (say, 8 years under Bush) where what YOU want will be ignored, and instead what those OTHER states want YOU to do will become law. It swings both ways.

By reducing the size of elections, you mathematically increase the power of each voter within them. If I'm voting in a pool of 100, I have a lot more of a chance to swing enough people to my side of the vote. And the guy I'm voting for has a lot more reason to make sure he accurately represents my interests, because I'm holding a larger stake in hiring / firing him.

This is why I believe that we should do as much governing as possible at the county level. Only issues that can't be solved at that level should then be solved at the state level. Then, only issues that can't be solved at the state level, should move to the federal level.

By "solved", I don't mean "decided to YOUR liking". I mean, "decided to the liking of those voters". Have you ever heard the phrase, "live and let live"? You may not like how someone else raises their kid, but it is their kid, after all. Of course, as long as they aren't abusing the kid.

To prevent government abuse, we need to have specific limitations on government; which can't be broken, even if voters want to. We have the Bill of Rights for the federal government. States have something similar.

Hey, and one last thing that's cool about the separation of powers: if you don't like how things are run where you live, you can move somewhere else that is more suited to your philosophy. If all we had was a national government, then you'd have to move to another country, which has immigration barriers and so on. But if governments were at a state level, you'd be able to stay in America, but just move to another state. And, unlike a country, the states can't stop you from moving in or out of them. Now, imagine the same thing, but on a county level. Or a city level. Wouldn't it be cool if your Republican friends could live under their government, and you under yours, and yet you can still be within driving distance of each other? A guy can dream.

If you want to know specifically what I think should be state, and what should be national level policy, I'd look at the constitution. Article I, Section 8 seems pretty clear to me. So does the 10th Amendment. The federal government is supposed to have a very specific, limited set of powers. Everything else is reserved for the States or the People.

Now, I'll ask you a similar question: do you believe there should be any limit on the Federal Government's powers? If so, what should that be? What should the power of the States be?

Quote[/b] ]

And I find your

Quote

which is why I'm trying to show people how to prevent it

line equally telling, as your way is the only way to do it.

Wouldn't it be awesome to live in a world, where instead of just name-calling each other ("Bush is evil", "The rich are evil", blah blah blah), we actually discussed facts and ideas?

I have been trying to present evidence to support my claims that we can't afford our government . I have pointed out a lot of numbers that support my argument, and nobody, including yourself, has bothered to respond to those arguments.

Instead, people tend to "dumb down" the argument, into really, really simple sentences like "Bush caused this mess". If you say something like that, you should have a reason you believe it. You should have some kind of evidence to support such a claim, and you should put it up for discussion.

Discussing facts actually leads to solutions. Discussing personalities is a waste of time.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Until Bush's "no child left behind" act made it a federal one. Colleges are established and funded at a state level. k-12 education is done at a mixture of state and local level.

Good god, is this really what's happened to us as a country? Are you really telling me you didn't know it was traditionally a state issue? Is there anything that you think is a state issue?

Are you really telling me that well prior to "No Child Left Behind" that states have vied for FEDERAL dollars to supplement their state budgets?

Are you telling me that you didn't know that school standards have long been a federally mandated issue with additional state standardized testing based on federal criteria?

Why do you think the very reason is that Kansas isn't teaching a strict creationist curriculum though they tried?

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure how to put this...

Look at things numerically. If you are voting in a pool of 100 voters, how much does your vote count in the election? Now, what if you are voting in a pool of 100 million voters? Your vote just got 1 million times less important.

I don't know if you've ever lived outside the US, but one thing I noticed from doing so is that we are a really, really big country. We have some 300 million people. Most other countries seem to be a tenth that size. That means voters have 10 times more say in their government in those other countries.

Umm...in case you didn't know we have the electoral college, so bascially your vote is counting on a state-level in presidential elections. Other than that, we don't really do a lot of voting on the FEDERAL level...just the state and local level. That is why we are called a "representative" government...we elect on the state level to legislate on the federal level.

Quote[/b] ]Now, the concerns you express are basically along the lines of "what if the other states don't do it right". To me, that sounds very controlling. You don' want to let other states have their say in issues that you wouldn't agree with, even though you aren't living in those states. If that is truly how you feel, then you must also realize that the reverse will be true. There will be times (say, 8 years under Bush) where what YOU want will be ignored, and instead what those OTHER states want YOU to do will become law. It swings both ways.

That is the nature of a republic/democracy. You don't always get what you want...I again reference tax dollars.

Quote[/b] ]This is why I believe that we should do as much governing as possible at the county level. Only issues that can't be solved at that level should then be solved at the state level. Then, only issues that can't be solved at the state level, should move to the federal level.

So what exactly are the issues at a COUNTY level that you feel should be pushed to a FEDERAL level? The highway system when it crumbles in just your county? The education system when you don't have a large enough tax base to compete with larger tax bases for jobs and opportunities? When companies locate their business elsewhere because you don't have the infrastructure or education to provide an adequate labor pool? Or should we just say "Oh well" to those counties and local governments that can survive in a free market way?

Quote[/b] ]Hey, and one last thing that's cool about the separation of powers: if you don't like how things are run where you live, you can move somewhere else that is more suited to your philosophy. If all we had was a national government, then you'd have to move to another country, which has immigration barriers and so on. But if governments were at a state level, you'd be able to stay in America, but just move to another state. And, unlike a country, the states can't stop you from moving in or out of them. Now, imagine the same thing, but on a county level. Or a city level. Wouldn't it be cool if your Republican friends could live under their government, and you under yours, and yet you can still be within driving distance of each other? A guy can dream.

Yeah and it would be cool if I crapped gold too. So you want what...seperation of government by belief system? Why not have the State of Democrats and the State of Republicans? Why not just split the country based on conservative and liberal views...everyone on pick a side. If I'm not mistaken we tried that in the mid-1800's and it didn't turn out too well. That's when we learned we all had to play nice together.

Quote[/b] ]If you want to know specifically what I think should be state, and what should be national level policy, I'd look at the constitution. Article I, Section 8 seems pretty clear to me. So does the 10th Amendment. The federal government is supposed to have a very specific, limited set of powers. Everything else is reserved for the States or the People.

Despite the fact I said "Without referencing the Constitution...", you did just that. What powers...EXACTLY...should the state and federal governments have? As in list them. In detail.

Quote[/b] ]Wouldn't it be awesome to live in a world, where instead of just name-calling each other ("Bush is evil", "The rich are evil", blah blah blah), we actually discussed facts and ideas?

I have been trying to present evidence to support my claims that we can't afford our government . I have pointed out a lot of numbers that support my argument, and nobody, including yourself, has bothered to respond to those arguments.

Instead, people tend to "dumb down" the argument, into really, really simple sentences like "Bush caused this mess". If you say something like that, you should have a reason you believe it. You should have some kind of evidence to support such a claim, and you should put it up for discussion.

Discussing facts actually leads to solutions. Discussing personalities is a waste of time.

Hmm. Ok.

For one you forgot the next line, which I will supply here for your convenience :

Quote[/b] ]Course, we are all probably guilty of this infraction in this thread (and I'm talking about going all the way back to some of the orginal threads...).

Second, I don't remember ever saying 1)"Bush is evil" or 2)"Obama is the savior", so you probably shouldn't address that comment to me.

You asked for evidence that a government is capable of social spending and I gave you an example, which I should point out you immediately demanded the DEMOCRATS to come up with a balanced budget...which sounds an awful lot like the "bush is evil" complaint you had above.

Yes you have pointed out a lot of obvious numbers that we spend too much, but then again ask ANY American what they think about trillions in debt and they will say "We spend too much" (among other things). How to get out of that is an opinion dependant on one's view point, yours just being one. In fact if you wish to look back, I never once disagreed that we spend too much...we just apparently disagree about what it should be spent on.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. How do you exactly reconcile poorer states and local governments, and the services and education they offer with other locales? And it can't be federal money since that would be the big government interferring.

EDIT: A couple sp errors. I'm sure there are more in there.

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is a situation that was allowed by the bush administration, it's easy to screw things up, but a lot harder to fix them.

Please, give me the specifics. What specifically did the Bush administration do, and how exactly did that cause the current situation?

And, while your at it, can you explain to me how this situation is different from a normal market cycle? That actually brings me to my second point:

Well, deregulation for one. mortgage brokers are regulated by the goverment and as such the goverment did a bad job at regulating.

While it's probably not fair to blame bush for the whole mess it happened on his watch. And he was on watch for 8 years. so go figure. This didn't happen overnight.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, deregulation for one. mortgage brokers are regulated by the goverment and as such the goverment did a bad job at regulating.

Question: What is/should be the objective of government regulations in the mortgage market? What are some examples of where the government did a "bad job" and failed to meet that objective?

I often hear the cry "not enough regulation", but as banking is perhaps one of the most heavily regulated industries, I wonder how this can be true.

And, last time I checked, the purpose of regulation wasn't to prevent normal market cycles. Rather, it was to prevent fraud and other criminal acts.

----

Now, lets go back to the last recession, at the turn of the century. It was kicked off by the bursting of the tech bubble, at the end of Clinton's presidency.

How was that recession different from this one?

Take a look at this list of US recessions. It looks to me like we have a recession just about every 10 years. Again, would someone please explain to me how this one is somehow different from all the others?

[.kju 3244]

Simple. Scale and speed (technology).

Money is way way highly concentrated on a very small number of people.

Details:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini

[Commando84 0]

maybe because its more global and shits been hitting the fan and spread out all over?

If the bush goverment would have put down to safe the first bank that was going down in flames last year then I don't think this whole crap would have started but Im not educated in economics so i could be wrong too

[Akira 0]

I often hear the cry "not enough regulation", but as banking is perhaps one of the most heavily regulated industries, I wonder how this can be true.

And, last time I checked, the purpose of regulation wasn't to prevent normal market cycles. Rather, it was to prevent fraud and other criminal acts.

Like Madoff? Like Stanford? Like the whole sub-prime bs that apparently brought about this mess in the first place? Madoff and Stanford were both peddling their fraud for over a decade.

CEO's banking tens of millions while their banks and companies go down the toilet and their workers become jobless and penniless?

And there is too much regulation?

[ADuke 1]

The new Arizona immigration laws here in the US have me a bit perplexed, I see a lot of heated discussion/arguing on media message boards.

Generally, on these message boards people aren't having "discussions" per se but are just throwing down a closed-minded opinion and then leaving, so I wanted to have an actual intelligent discussion about this here if I am allowed.

The new Arizona laws state that any person of Mexican descent can be stopped, searched, and even detained if a police officer has suspicion that they are here illegally. Meaning, the only criteria for them to be searched is that they have brown skin and speak Spanish.

Feel free to voice any opinion that you have on this matter, but here are my opinions...

1.) Here in the U.S. we have a constitution, the 4th amendment of that constitution grants U.S. citizens the following rights...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, under the Arizona immigration laws any Mexican-American can be searched and apprehended if they speak Spanish around a police officer which brings me to my next point.....

2.) Some people in this country like to yell and scream about how English is our official language and that all citizens should learn and speak that language.

Apparently that only applies to Mexicans or Mexican Americans because I am willing to bet that if I went out and started speaking German to someone (I am of German descent and speak it rather fluently) I would not be stopped, searched, or detained in any way.

Also I consider knowing several languages to be a sign of higher intelligence, so are my fellow countrymen seeking to deny me my right to seek out knowledge and use what I have learned?

That would only serve to make us all ignorant and alienated from the rest of the world.

3.) If we don't learn lessons from history then we are bound to repeat them right?

Remember what happened with the Third Reich in Germany?

Hitler was able to brainwash a vast majority of the German people and even convince them to accept genocide because they wanted to have pride in their country again.

I view Arizona's new immigration laws as repeating that same theme, singling out a specific race for judgment and searches.

Those are my opinions and I am sticking to them, the discussion is open.

-AD

[Flash Thunder 10]

My response is with Bob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCreeH58lf4&playnext_from=TL&videos=sSbEW6XFyUE

[ADuke 1]

My response is with Bob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCreeH58lf4&playnext_from=TL&videos=sSbEW6XFyUE

"Bob" seems to be very passionate about stopping illegal immigration, I agree with Bob, what I do not agree with is singling out an entire race of people for searches and siezures.

BTW this same race of people have fought and died for this country, many of them in special operations forces.

I will leave you with a video as well...

-AD

[soldier2390 0]

"Bob" seems to be very passionate about stopping illegal immigration, I agree with Bob, what I do not agree with is singling out an entire race of people for searches and siezures.

BTW this same race of people have fought and died for this country, many of them in special operations forces.

I will leave you with a video as well...

-AD

yeah guys i agree too! but if i might say to back up ADuke, i severed with a few who where of mexican desent, one of whom was a good freind of mine...and he lost his life in iraq for our country!

[Lhowon 10]

My response is with Bob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCreeH58lf4&playnext_from=TL&videos=sSbEW6XFyUE

Holy crap. I watched another one of his videos on the off-chance that this was some bizarre parody or a temporary case of the crazy, but no, the second video was even worse. In which he claimed the government was the root of all America's problems - because we all know that the economy collapsed because the government was regulating the financial sector too much, and healthcare was broken because the government was too restrictive of private health insurance...

I always thought Fox News was the bottom of the barrel when it comes to political commentary but (as ever) the Internet proves me wrong.

[maturin 12]

A naturalized citizen has already been pulled over at a truckstop and detained because he left his birth certificate at home(the driver's license wasn't good enough), he had an accent, and he said his mother was in Mexico.

Someone should suggest mandating that law enforcement check all gun-bearers on sight to make sure they have the proper permits and safety devices. Just to see what happens.

PS: Sorry about the whole intelligent debate thing, OP.

[ADuke 1]

A naturalized citizen has already been pulled over at a truckstop and detained because he left his birth certificate at home(the driver's license wasn't good enough), he had an accent, and he said his mother was in Mexico.

That's just the beginning, in my opinion that leads to making them wear stars on their jackets to mark them, that then leads to internment camps and so on and so forth.

A clear line needs to be drawn between what is effective immigration policies and what is hatred of a race.

[jakerod 254]

I personally think its a stupid law for reasons previously stated by others. That whole official language thing always pisses me off too since we don't have an official language.

[froggyluv 2135]

LOL @ DrinkingwithBob - Looks like someone's been missing their 12 step meetings...

Although I do agree we need hardcore illegal immigration reform, harrasing/detaining natural born citizens by means of racial profiling is Un-Constitutional.

Why is it that the Right in this country is ever so willing to bypass constitutional law in favor of profiling when the target peoples are always a minority? Like the above poster said, if we passed a law to search & detain gun-owners of rural descent who play army in the woods on weekends and espouse "down with the government!" or "White power!' -you'd see that same Right claiming facism/communism/nazism.

Clamp down but do it the right way.