I am doing my best to stay off this site because of the personal attack on me a few months ago, but this is still one of the better political debate sites I have found. As including the name of a certain individual in the @list is the only thing to bring on that attack, I will refrain from including him in anything.
Having entered this thread late in the game I will comment sequentially on a few posts:
You said in your opening post “This means, that Republicans now have almost all the authority for creating and passing legislation.”
While your statement is not wrong some clarity might be appropriate. If the Republicans had ALL of the House of Representatives (which they do not) AND if Republicans had ALL of the Senate (which they do not) they would then and ONLY then have 2/3 of the authority, which is not even close to “almost all the authority for creating and passing legislation” as you indicated. This might be a small point but it has big implications.
Again, although you are not wrong, I think clarity is important in the following. You said “Especially after the midterm election spanking the Republicans just gave them.”
This was an election, which is to say without doubt that the people were polled and by majority vote made their voice known. By the way, the Democrats crying foul because their people didn’t turn out in sufficient numbers is just crying over spilled milk.
Could it be that the AMERICAN people were the ones who gave a “spanking” to all of those who hold an ideology that they feel contrary to what they as citizens want?
A similar statement could be made about prior elections when Obama was running in 2008 and 2012. You could say that the people spoke and they did, both times. However, we the people, the owners of this country cannot vote to break the law and that is what we did in 2008 and ESPECIALLY in 2012.
As owners we cannot vote to break an existing law (evidence of breaking these laws are all over this site if you want a reference) but as owners we can vote to overturn or repeal a law.
Unfortunately under the poor leadership of most politicians we are led to believe that we can do whatever we want as long as the majority rules, without first changing the law to allow us to do whatever we want to do. This is the major stumbling block on comprehensive immigration, but we can talk about that later.
Ok, I guess it’s later. What is the problem with immigration reform? There are many problems but perhaps the major problem is that this has been tried before with a promise that the border would be secured.
Reform (amnesty) was allowed to happen but the border never was secured. Burn me once, shame on me. Burn me twice, shame on you. Most of the American people are not willing to offer a second chance because they were so burned the first time.
Current immigration laws are NOT being enforced. What makes ANYONE think that a promise to secure the border this time will carry more weight than last time when it, the same promise, failed?
Is it reasonable for Americans to be skeptical of their government and allow this to happen AGAIN? No. In fact until the government secures the border, patriotic Americans won’t even entertain a discussion on immigration reform. What makes that discussion even more improbable is that the current immigration laws, if only they were enforced, work fairly well.
You said you think we should “seal the border and create a work visa program.” We have a work visa program but sadly no secure border to go with it.
You said you don’t think it should be a “path to citizenship.” The work visa program we currently have is not a “path to citizenship.”
You said you think “all illegals here working should be able to do so legally with a work visa.” This is the only part of the program that even could someday be legal. It isn’t legal now but if properly done through congress it could be made legal and yes this is called amnesty but amnesty can be made legal. For the record I would vote against this but the vote would be legal because the people, THROUGH THE CONGRESS, can change laws. That stands in stark contrast to the President who CANNOT CHANGE LAWS. To go one step further, neither can the Supreme Court. Those who read the Constitution know that, those who don’t, don’t.
By the way, and this is not racist but what makes you think that we as a sovereign nation should form our sovereign laws in a manner to benefit those citizens of another sovereign nation solely to gain their “trust?”
I want only one kind of trust and that is that I want EVERY American citizen to trust that their elected political leaders will faithfully follow the Constitution of the United States of America which does one thing and one thing only and that is form a federal government for the SOLE purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people.
If you happen to be an American citizen and have a Hispanic heritage then you fall into the category of American citizen and I will fight to the death to defend your freedom.
Is there any kind of trust I would want from a Hispanic who is NOT an American citizen? Yes but I am not concerned about going very far out of my way to gain that trust because as an American I would hope our actions spell that out very clearly. That trust I would like a non-citizen to have: Trust in the United States to do whatever needs to be done to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people. That is all the trust I need from a non-citizen.
Not picking on you, CoffeeAdict. I think your points are generally good as they usually are on this site. I just think sometimes a bit of clarity is good.
James, you made mention to “watch for any reason to legally impeach” Obama. Clarity points out that there are already many legal reasons, but you are correct, there will almost certainly be more.
Julia, you said “I definitely hope they don’t focus on abortion, any anti gay marriage issues, or perpetuation of war initiatives.”
What exactly would you rather they focus on? Anti-gay marriage issues are exactly what politics and political parties are designed for. Perpetuation of war initiatives is not and you should be ashamed to state them in such a way.
Things like Obamacare, amnesty without securing the border, redistribution of wealth measures and many more like these are not really valid political debate issues (although they seem to be favorite issues).
These are not valid political debate issues because they are ALL AGAINST THE LAW. Some are against current statute (such as citizenship and gay marriage) and some, like Obamacare are against the Constitution which is the source document for ALL law in this land).
Here is the thing. If gay marriage was a legal concept then you could debate in politics whether that was a good or bad idea and let the people vote on it.
However marriage, by statute is defined as the union between one man and one woman and that is ALL. If you believe that SCOTUS struck down DOMA then you haven’t thought this through very well and possibly SCOTUS did something for which they have no authority to do.
Marriage is not defined or even mentioned in the Constitution. As such marriage is not a specifically protected right. To find an allowance for marriage one needs to go back farther to the Declaration of Independence to the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
These are your rights. In addition to that we have ten specific protected rights listed in the Bill of Rights. If it isn’t specifically mentioned there it isn’t a RIGHT.
The catchall to this is the phrase “the pursuit of happiness.” You have the “right” to pursue your “happiness” and that “right” is limited only when it interferes with my same “right” to pursue “happiness.”
You have the “right” to pursue “happiness” but whatever action you take in that pursuit is a “privilege” meaning that you have the privilege of “choosing” and taking many different paths to pursue that “happiness.”
Let me go to the extreme to illustrate my point. If killing me was the way you chose to pursue your “happiness” and whatever made you happy was your “right” then nobody could stop or punish you for killing me (perhaps a bad example because you are probably wanting to kill me right now (LOL)).
If an action is not specifically a “right” such as gay marriage, or straight marriage for that matter because straight marriage is not a “right” either, it is a privilege. If it is a “privilege” then we as citizens are free to regulate that as we see fit by passing laws.
We have passed such a law and it is called the Defense of Marriage ACT or DOMA. In that law we decided that we wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman ONLY. We had proper authority to make that law and we did.
As a side note, if you are concerned that this is discriminatory you are wrong. We the people had proper authority to make this law and if struck down by SCOTUS they did so WITHOUT proper authority.
Many people see this as discrimination. It is not. If gays are treated differently under HIPAA then address the HIPAA laws for discrimination. If they are treated differently under the IRS code as relates to married couples, then address the IRS code for discrimination. Marriage laws are NOT discriminatory. But repealing the one-man-one-woman thing opens up Pandora’s box.
As such this whole “gay-marriage” thing is illegal and will forever be illegal unless and until the people vote to repeal DOMA. Since it is illegal for gays to marry it is not a valid political debate UNLESS included in that debate is ALSO a vote to overturn DOMA. That is not and never has been a topic of the debate.
For the record, the whole notion that marriage is to be between one man and one woman is ALSO the law that makes polygamy illegal. If DOMA is overturned then all of a sudden polygamy is once again legal. I don’t think that is what the people wanted here.
By the way, if marriage is not between one man and one woman then what is stopping Susie from marrying her horse? And if marriage is a “right” then how can we stop our six-year-old children from getting married?
Some states make it illegal to marry your first cousin. If marriage is a “right” as many would demand it is then we MUST allow first cousins or even brothers and sisters to marry. People don’t think this stuff through.
The point is that things that are outside the realm of legal law are not good topics of political debate. Gay marriage is outside the realm of legal law specifically because it is illegal. It certainly could be brought into the realm of legal law but to date this has not been done nor has it been addressed. Keep in mind that SCOTUS CANNOT WRITE LAWS.
That is a lot to say on a one sentence post but this should point out to you how misinformed and misleading that one sentence really is. I hope you consider that next time.
There is no such thing as discussion of the “perpetuation of war initiatives” by patriotic Americans because to perpetuate wars is truly anti-American (I don’t expect you to understand but at your request I will write on this as well, just let me know if you need an explanation).
Suffice it to say that strategies and tactics, although tactics are mostly classified, and how to win a war if our country is threatened as we are EVERYDAY by terrorists (not that you would have a clue) are indeed pertinent political debate topics. No patriotic American would contemplate perpetuating wars though and I can only guess that you are getting those ideas from people who hate or despise America.
Wailers Wale (WW), you said “I do not understand how republicans agree with the idea illegals should be deported from this country. First, is not America populated by all immigrants…”.
Just who the hell do you think legally occupies this sovereign nation we call the United States? I know you won’t ever get this so I’ll tell you who legally occupies this nation. We’re called American citizens and if you happen to be one then welcome to the best nation in the world. As for the “Indians” I think James has sufficiently answered that question.
WW, I think your attack on James is unwarranted. You speak of health care in America. HIT might have an impact of health care but insurance, COO’s and CFO’s have NOTHING to do with health care. You should be ashamed to make such an irresponsible statement.
Unless that CFO happens to be your personal doctor (and in nearly every case he is not), both you and your doctor are simultaneously negligent if you let the non-doctor interfere with your healthcare (although this is exactly what Obamacare wants to do, actually they want to make it even worse and let politicians make your healthcare decisions for you).
WW, for you to “write this off” as being a “coach” after Sunday games demonstrates your irresponsibility.
James said in relation to WW: “I don’t know you, I don’t know if you want facts or if you just want to run on emotion, but have done my best here to provide you with facts, the rest is up to you, whether you read the information or not. Either way, have a great day.”
James, you are a better man than me. I thought the attack was unprovoked. I thought his attack on you was not well-thought-out. I would like to see WW re-analyze this and take another try if he can do it without attacking. He seems to have something to say and if he ever did any research he might be informed and then actually be able to contribute.
Back to WW on the next post:
WW said in answer to James:
“And in relation to you’re statement in reference to the second amendment please do not bring up any constitutional amendments in today day and age in america. We have clearly steered away from what our founding fathers envisioned when they created these articles of documents. And hey look the one president who tried to get us back on track with the constitutions wording got assassinated. No wonder ever president in office never brings REAL change.”
WW, please don’t take this as an attack on you because it isn’t. However it surly is a response to the words you wrote.
When you ask someone to not reference the Constitution you are asking, in fact in your case demanding that they stop being an American and that sir is truly wrong in every sense of the word.
Question for you WW. What is the difference between us (Americans) and the citizens of say North Korea? Before I answer that let me quote something I quoted above but do it again so you might get the meaning of the words this time. Those words are found in the Declaration of Independence and are as follows:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Yes, our founders were intelligent enough to realize that ALL men (and by extension, women) are created equal. This is a declaration that when we start in life (birth) we are no different than the North Koreans.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Question for WW: Why are governments instituted among men?
Answer: “TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS.”
Question for WW: Why else are governments instituted among men?
Answer: THERE IS NO OTHER REASON (see previous answer).
Question for WW: What is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution?
Answer: This is spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America and if you have small children in the house you can ask one of them because children are often required to memorize the Preamble.
However, it can be said that the NEED to institute a government among men is adequately answered in the Declaration of Independence. So with the NEED for a government having been established I would suggest to you that the purpose of the Constitution is to describe HOW that government is to be constructed.
You ask us to NOT mention the Constitution and amendments and then to throw salt into that wound you clearly take joy in the totally absurd notion that we “We have clearly steered away from what our founding fathers envisioned when they created these articles of documents.”
WW, if you cannot see that the difference between the free American citizen and the owned North Korean citizen is freedom and that because of the founding documents our government is duty-bound by sworn oath to defend the United States and its people and their rights and freedoms above ALL else, then you clearly don’t cherish your freedom enough to take the time to realize what it means and how precious and fragile it is.
Have you ever wondered why many people throughout history were willing to die for your freedom? It is that cherished by many people (perhaps not you), many of whom put on the uniform of this great nation. Those who wear the uniform also know how perishable and fragile that freedom is.
In America, whether you agree with this post or disagree with it, you have the FREEDOM to either read it or not read it and that is YOUR CHOICE. In North Korea they do not have that freedom. If dear-leader wants them to read it, they read it or die. If dear-leader doesn’t want them to read it and they read it anyway, they die.
For the record WW, the ONLY real difference between the free American citizen and the owned North Korean is in-fact that piece of paper called the United States Constitution that you are so willing to piss on because it doesn’t fit some wet dream you might have had at some point.
In case you still don’t get it, it is that very piece of paper which requires and DEMANDS by sworn oath that the government of the United States defend our freedom above ALL else.
To everyone else on this site: You know me from my numerous and yes, lengthy posts (sorry for that). You also know that I like good political debate that is based on rational thought.
You also know that I support my positions and if by chance I am unable to provide support but still believe I am right I will let you know that what I am about to say is a matter of opinion.
Discussions on how to further advance the causes of this great nation are always welcome and I enjoy contributing to them. However, what you saw here, and answered in this post, was an attack on the best nation in the world and our way of life. Such attacks are unwarranted but unfortunately are launched by many people, not just the person mentioned here.
Because this anti-American rhetoric (this is not just opinion, asking us to ignore the Constitution is indeed anti-American and that is not open for discussion) is put forth by more than one person, I ask you to NOT take this as an attack on WW (because I do not know WW) but a strong response, and yes an attack if you must, on the ideology and words used by WW. Again, not against WW but against the position taken by WW. Thanks!
Get informed. The best and easiest ways to do this are by some research but often by listening to and participating in RATIONAL debate. Get informed; make an informed decision at the voting booth. This country can be saved if we want to save it!