The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@coffeeaddict

In my opinion the first thing they should do is start whittling away at obozocare until it has no power of the American people, they can completely rid us of it when oblammer is gone in 2016. (Note:Watch for any reason to legally impeach our Traitor-in-Chief at the first possible opportunity.)

While they are getting that monkey off our backs they should focus on getting some work for our people, starting with things like the Keystone Pipeline, etc. Work to get our manufacturing back into the U.S. Create Jobs!

Secure the border, while removing illegals from within our country. Border patrol should have the authority to warn those trying to enter the country twice, in spanish, then open fire on them, first to wound, say in the leg, if that doesn’t work then they are free to use whatever force they need to stop the invader from coming into our country.

And for right now lastly, Stop the Stupid. Stop having our kids thrown out of school for such brazen acts as wearing an NRA tee shirt, making people bake wedding cakes for people who live a life style they don’t agree with, stop attacking the Bible and the Ten Commandments that the citizens of a town or city have chosen to show in their courthouses, etc, and for the sake of sanity stop making American citizens take down the greatest flag that has ever flown. Long May She Wave.

Well geez, Coffee, I think I went on a bit of a rant on that last part, but that’s how I feel.

Profile photo of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw

@coffeeaddict @jlriggs57aol-com I definitely hope they don’t focus on abortion, any anti gay marriage issues, or perpetuation of war initiatives.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@juliaw
@coffeeaddict

With everything else going on, why would they focus on any anti gay marriage issues, or, as you say, perpetuation of war initiatives?(really?) Those would have to way, way down on the list of things to focus on.

On the other hand I hope they do focus on stopping the senseless murder of thousands upon thousands of babies.

Life begins at conception.

Profile photo of Wailers Wale
Wailers Wale @donjulio

@jlriggs57aol-com
@coffeeaddict

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, seeing as the Indians owned this land and Europeans along with their slaves populated the Americas with whites and blacks ?

So how can us illegals of America, tell other illegals wishing for a better life they cannot stay here?

Secondly James unless you have a definitive answer as to what will fix health care in America, in relation to HIT technology, Insurance, COO , CFO’s, Community health, access to fair health for all, the problem onset of unverified credentials among st health care officials, under qualified and under prepared health officials, than i suggest you do not bash what is in place. It is easy to be “coach” after Sunday games.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@donjulio
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw

Wailers, Let’s start with the obvious, as you said, “I do not understand how republicans agree with the idea “ILLEGALS” should be deported from this country.”

They are illegal, that means they have broken the law of our country by sneaking in without going through the “legal channels” and once you have chosen to sneak in illegally you are a criminal. When you are a criminal you must face the consequences of the law in which you have broken.

Try to look at it this way if you go into a bank and rob it, wouldn’t you expect to be punished for it? You know it is illegal, but you decided to do it anyway. Do you think you would just walk out and no one would do anything about it?

These people are criminals and they must be held accountable, just like you and I, for breaking the law.

Then you said, ” First, is not America populated by all immigrants, seeing as the Indians owned this land and Europeans along with their slaves populated the Americas with whites and blacks ?”

We are talking about centuries ago. There were no laws in this country, the natives that were here had their individual laws for each tribe, there were no laws that governed the entire country. There were no immigration laws to enforce against the pilgrims so the pilgrims did not break any laws. Did the white people treat the natives fairly? In my opinion, no. But that is for a different discussion.

Lastly, you said, “unless you have a definitive answer as to what will fix health care in America,……….. than i suggest you do not bash what is in place. It is easy to be “coach” after Sunday games.”

The answer to that question is that our healthcare needed fixing. Do I have the answer to how it can be fixed? No. I am a construction worker not a healthcare expert. However, if you look at oblamer’s resume you will find that he isn’t either.

You said I shouldn’t bash what is in place if I, personally don’t have a fix. I never tried to “coach” after the Sunday game, I have been against this loooong before it ever became a law. I voted against it, I spoke against it, and I still am against it, I didn’t wait until it was law to work against it.

Why am I against it you may ask, which you didn’t. It is socialism, I am not deciding to buy into it, the government is telling me I have to. Ask yourself what will be the next thing the government will tell you, you have to do?

Also, socialized healthcare is a huge hole in the ground that you have to fill up with money. The biggest problem is that as you fill it up it gets bigger and bigger, the more money you put in the bigger the hole gets and it is never full.

I don’t know you, but if you will take the time to read this you will see that “every” country that has socialized medicine is having their economy destroyed because of it. Socialism does not work, it never has and it never will.

If you are seeking the truth, then take the time to follow the link I posted below and read the discussion and follow the links that I posted on the countries that are having their economies crushed by socialized healthcare and how their healthcare is constantly diminishing. Take special note of Italy.

http://www.volkalize.com/topic/name-another-first-world-country-without-some-form-of-universal-health-care/

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.

Profile photo of Keith S
Keith S @indy62

I would like to see congress address immigration, but it’s not likely. Neither party has had much success addressing it. The GOP should probably start with some “low hanging fruit”, some easy bipartisan things like the Keystone pipeline. That should get support from both sides. Maybe fix some of the problems with Obamacare like the 30-hour work week. Then lower the corporate tax rate, which could have a long term positive affect on the economy and gradually create some jobs. There are plenty of good bipartisan ideas out there.

If they put some of those bipartisan bills on the presidents desk and see if he will cooperate on the easy stuff. Either way, that would confirm Harry Reed was the real obstruction for the past 6 years.

If those bills pass, then they should gradually work up to some more complex issues. Am I too optimistic and naive? Maybe. It certainly can’t get worse.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@donjulio
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw
@indy62

Keith, if you don’t copy and paste the @’s of those in the discussion no one will know you posted a comment.

Couldn’t agree with you more on taking things slowly so everyone can plainly see that obozo has nothing but contempt for this country. The ultimate goal would be to have obamacare completely and utterly repealed. We do not want to live with this socialist stain on American for one minute longer than we have to.

I personally don’t think that Harry Reid was being an obstruction, on his own, I think he was just doing his masters bidding.

I don’t think you are being too optimistic nor naive about the way you laid it out.

Having said that, I might say you are a little naive if you think things can’t get worse. oblamer is power-hungry. By his actions, he is screaming loud and clear that he wants to be dictator of America. He can extend his time in the White House very easily, all he has to do is initiate martial law and he can stay in office indefinitely. Look at all the things he has been doing since he’s been in office, showing contempt for our vets, race baiting to divide us, allowing the U.N. and other countries to stockpile arms and munitions in the U.S., allowing Our Country to be invaded by millions of illegals from the south, nearly crippling our military by reducing the number of personnel to the lowest number since before WWII. And the list goes on and on and on. He has set things up pretty well to call martial law on just about any of these, except the first one I mentioned, of course.

He duped the people of this country to get into office, he will probably do anything he has to in order to stay in office. Don’t count this lowlife slug out yet.

He is exactly why our founders put the 2nd Amendment in place. I would encourage you and anyone who wants to help in the fight to retain Our 2nd Amendment to join the NRA, NAGR, and The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Profile photo of Wailers Wale
Wailers Wale @donjulio

@jlriggs57aol-com
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw
@indy62

hello James, replying to the earlier post. I believe we have to look at ourselves in the mirror and be honest. At the end of the day we are all brothers and sisters, whether you want to believe it or not. Are you now telling me is it morally right to turn my back on my brother and sister who is trying to escape poverty, abuse, depression , by coming to America because, they did not follow proper channels to enter this country ? if you honestly believe this , you are my friend lack companion for the fellow human , which is the problem with many many individuals thinking in this world.

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.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@donjulio
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw
@indy62

Wailers, I don’t expect you to do anything. You are going to do what you want to do, irregardless of my expectations.

You make your stand any way you want to and I will do the same. You say because they have poverty, abuse, and depression(I assume you meant oppression), in their country, that makes it all right to come here illegally. So the answer is just open our borders and let anyone who lives under these conditions just walk right in and make themselves at home, with all the benefits of being a citizen of the U.S. Let’s say we did that. Let’s say we allowed a complete and total invasion. Now we have crammed millions upon millions of people from south of the border in here, but then wait, what about all the other countries around the world who live in the same situation? Could we be so heartless and cruel that we don’t allow them to just walk in and take over just like we did for those of Hispanic heritage.

Now we have to let anyone, from any country, come in without any checks or balances, Especially the 3rd World countries like: Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Zimbabwe, just to name a few. Some of these countries are in worse shape than those south of the border.

So after the millions of Hispanic come in, then we will have multi-millions coming from over seas.

Now exactly what are we supposed to do with all these multi-millions of people? There is housing to be provided, food, clothing, healthcare, etc.

Or we could be total racists and say only Hispanics from south of the border can come in.

What are the people of any of these countries, including those south of the border, doing to make things better in their own countries? Why does the U.S. have to be the food, housing and healthcare provider for the world? Why should the American taxpayer have to foot the bill for all these multi-millions of people who would come into this country? And don’t even begin to tell me we wouldn’t have to pay for it all because the government has no money except what they take from us.

To your statement about how we have moved away from Our Constitution, I will agree to that to a degree, but as our last election in November shows, we are moving back towards it. Thank God.

And I make this invitation to anyone who thinks that another country has a better way of life, a better culture, a better healthcare, a better anything. If there is a country in their mind that is better, for any reason, use the freedom to go there, stop trying to change this one.

I don’t mean this in a rude way, I am being serious. I don’t want someone to live here that doesn’t want to.

Profile photo of

Let’s start by enforcing the laws on the books. Illegal is Illegal. Let’s say you own a lawn mower, but don’t use it. Does that give me the right to take your lawn mower? Of course not. That would be theft. Yet we allow a certain population to ignore our nations sovereignty, ignore our laws, pick and choose what laws they want to adhere to and drain our dwindling resources.

Until we can get a handle on American Employment the case should be closed. And if BO truly goes through with this he is playing Russian Roulette with the constitution.

I just addressed this issue on my webpage. Go to generationfrustration.com to read more.

This man should have been impeached years ago. How much more are we going to take?

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

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:

@coffeeaddict

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.

@jlriggs57aol-com

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.

@juliaw

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.

@donjulio

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!

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

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:

@coffeeaddict

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.

@jlriggs57aol-com

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.

@juliaw

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.

@donjulio

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!

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Sorry if this posted twice. I posted it and received a “bad gateway” message and assumed it didn’t post. I waited a couple minutes and posted again. I saw two posts.

Ironically I then saw the EDIT button and clicked on it. I then deleted the second post and found that it did nothing. Sorry

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar

I don’t know who attacked you, but don’t let them get the better of you. You bring a lot of good information, opinion, and a real understanding of what a true patriot to this country is.

I have been insulted on this site many times. Here’s how I see it. When a liberal is reduced to attacking us on a personal level, that means they have run out of legitimate information to come back with, so they insult the person. When that happens, you know and they know, they simply haven’t got a leg to stand on.

Like I said, don’t let somebody get to you because of what they call you, they are just ticked off because you have bested them.

Have a great day my friend.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

I wouldn’t be concerned except the guy who attacked me struck me as a pretty smart guy overall. I have pretty thick skin and coincidently I had other things to take care of at the time.

In this case I sure hope that WW takes a minute to re-evaluate his position and clarify his remarks for us.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS