LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Guinness]

I believe the Feds have a legitimate role in food inspection, drug safety and could even play a limited constructive in health insurance reform.

The Constitution disagrees with you.

I certainly do believe that national defense is the most important role of the Federal government and that the military , intelligence and national law enforcement have to be allowed to do their jobs. Without "security" the country as we know it ceases to exist.

While I would agree that, under the Constitution, the Feds are charged with national defense, the current military posture is imperial by any definition, and really circumvents the spirit of the Constitution and the liberty-oriented founders.

I guess I just find it curious that folks who are generally (rightly) suspicious of the efficiency and efficacy of government action, all of a sudden defer to the largest, most bloated and bureaucratic branch of government...

[Geezer]

The problem with the deportation process is that it is impossible to address the tens of millions of illrgals because of legal stalling tactics to subvert our laws and our constitution IMO.

I can address illegal immigration in a one page bill that reads something like: any CEO or owner of a company found to be employing illegal immigrants will be charged with criminal conspiracy with an automatic sentence of one year per illegal if convicted. Any members of other senior management (from plant manager up) and/or the board of directors of a company found to be employing illegal immigrants will be charged with abetting criminal activity with an automatic sentence of six months per illegal if convicted.

Problem solved. Of course I wouldn't expect any corporate largess for my next campaign if I did that, which is why nobody ever will do it.

I truly believe you do find that reasonable since your posts seem to show a very strong anti-capitalism viewpoint. I have no problem with CEO's facing jail ,fines , etc if they were negligent in avoiding hiring illegals. If you included jail time for Zoe Baird and other judges Clinton tried to appoint along with numerous pols cought employing illegals (and not paying social security taxes for them) then your zero tolerance approch would be more fair.

I think a one or two page bill that includes the following is more reasonable.

1 Employers or company officials employing illegals face jail / fines for knowingly hiring illegals. Companies would be required to verify social security & citzenship data. Failure to do so would be a felony.
2 Companies guilty of flagrant offenses would be subject to very heavy fines, all court costs and be ineligible for any federal contracts and be ineligible for work involving direct or indirect funding.
3 States, such as California, that violate federal law by providing benefits to illegals would lose federal funding double the amount provided per illegal.
4 Illegals caught working in this country work be deported with any resources they have less the court and deportaion costs. If that exceeds everything they have they leave with zero.
5 Any states or localities, such as SF, declaring themselves amnesty zones lose all federal funding for that year. All officials responsible for such actions face a mandatory 5 year jail time.
6 States receive a set federal bounty plus cost reimbursement per illegal caught and deported to provide an incentive to evict illegals. Presently the feds give extra political representation and funding for states to allow illegals.

[cs6687]

Off topic, but I made $90 for doublem's medical expenses today.

[Firebird]

What irks me about illegals working is them avoiding taxes and then me paying for thier medical care.

They do jobs that most people never would touch in the Southwest, so they serve as some use in those areas.

I'm not really worried about illegals taking jobs that noone wants, rather I'm worried about them freeloading.

[Geezer]

What irks me about illegals working is them avoiding taxes and then me paying for thier medical care.

They do jobs that most people never would touch in the Southwest, so they serve as some use in those areas.

I'm not really worried about illegals taking jobs that noone wants, rather I'm worried about them freeloading.

My belief about doing jobs that nobody wants is that people will do them at some pay level. If these jobs are needed ,wages for such jobs will have to increase if there are no illegals to do these jobs. This will cause some costs and prices to rise on some goods and services. But isn't that what capitilism is supposed to represent? For example if U.S. citizens aren't filling janitorial jobs for large buildings then the buildings won't get cleaned or pay will increase to the point that citizens will take those jobs. This could cause an incease to having an office in this building. The cost would either have to be absorbed by a company with an office or passed along as a cost increase. But for those who believe in capitilism an equilibrium will eventually be reached where job openings would be filled at given wage levels. To me having massive numbers of illegals depresses wage levels.

If rich people couldn't hire illegal women as nannies dirt cheap, they'd have to either pony up more money for citizen nannies or they'd have to take care of their own kids despite job demands. What is wrong with that? Lots of 2 parent working famlies do their own child care despite job demands.

[doublem]

Off topic, but I made $90 for doublem's medical expenses today.

Thanks, where do you live so I can collect?

[doublem]

Without "security" the country as we know it ceases to exist.

The country existed fine for centuries from the threat of terrorism and faced down the Nazi's and the Cold War. What makes this threat so different that we have to break the rule of law and why trust a government that has shown numerous times it has no idea what it is doing in combating terrorism?

[doublem]

I'm not really worried about illegals taking jobs that noone wants, rather I'm worried about them freeloading.

What is this constant obsession with poor "freeloaders" in this country? We have just shilled out trillions, Trillions of dollars to the same "freeloaders" but they have big boats and private planes. Why aren't we obsessed over that?

[doublem]

But for those who believe in capitilism an equilibrium will eventually be reached where job openings would be filled at given wage levels.

Who are these people that believe in capitalism or pure capitalism that have power in this country becasue I have yet to see it?

[doublem]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

I know what Interpol is..........but thank you for your condescending assumption. My point is, the amendment to the executive order effectively gives Interpol the power to gather evidence, make arrests, and conduct investigations of Americans on American soil. So instead of having to go through normal constitutional channels, the federal government can now act under the auspices of Interpol, thus bypassing the usual checks and balances. My question to you is, why would Obama even bother sneaking this amendment in over the holidays? But thank you for your wonderfully sarcastic and condescending tone...it really helps to raise the level of dialogue.

This is already happening. The NSA programs almost gave the same power to the government. This isn't new and how can you on one level say we need more security but on the other criticize the government when it gets out of hand? What did you think will happen? What do you think will happen when you start ripping up the BOR. This guy wasn't American but still.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not often that an appellate court decision reflects so vividly what a country has become, but such is the case with yesterday's ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Arar v. Ashcroft (.pdf). Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing. I've appended to the end of this post the graphic description from a dissenting judge of what was done to Arar while in American custody and then in Syria.

[HomerPenguin]

I truly believe you do find that reasonable since your posts seem to show a very strong anti-capitalism viewpoint.

Mmmm, no, anti-corporate, anti-plutocrat, but not necessarily anti-capitalism. Large multi-national corporations and big banks have no interest in real capitalism and seek to destroy it at every turn. Smash every one of them to pieces and convince me that they'll never be back, and I might start agreeing with Guinness more often.

I have no problem with CEO's facing jail ,fines , etc if they were negligent in avoiding hiring illegals. If you included jail time for Zoe Baird and other judges Clinton tried to appoint along with numerous pols cought employing illegals (and not paying social security taxes for them) then your zero tolerance approch would be more fair.

As far as I know anyone hiring a domestic worker is effectively acting as the owner of their own business. They'd be included automatically.

I think a one or two page bill that includes the following is more reasonable.

1 Employers or company officials employing illegals face jail / fines for knowingly hiring illegals. Companies would be required to verify social security & citzenship data. Failure to do so would be a felony.
2 Companies guilty of flagrant offenses would be subject to very heavy fines, all court costs and be ineligible for any federal contracts and be ineligible for work involving direct or indirect funding.
3 States, such as California, that violate federal law by providing benefits to illegals would lose federal funding double the amount provided per illegal.
4 Illegals caught working in this country work be deported with any resources they have less the court and deportaion costs. If that exceeds everything they have they leave with zero.
5 Any states or localities, such as SF, declaring themselves amnesty zones lose all federal funding for that year. All officials responsible for such actions face a mandatory 5 year jail time.
6 States receive a set federal bounty plus cost reimbursement per illegal caught and deported to provide an incentive to evict illegals. Presently the feds give extra political representation and funding for states to allow illegals.

I should have included copious fines in addition to the jail time in my last post on this; I'd fine the company itself $1 million per illegal to start, then adjust upwards if the deterrent wasn't enough at $1 million per. I'd also change your number 2; depending on what "flagrant offenses" is, I'd be in favor of a corporate death penalty. Disband the board, fire the employees, seize the assets and auction them to the highest bidder.

None of these other points would matter if companies stopped hiring illegals to save on labor. If you want to stop them, make the cost of hiring illegals higher than the savings they gain by going that route. If the jobs go, so does the problem.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

President Barack Obama said Tuesday that the intelligence community had bits of information that should have been pieced together that would have triggered "red flags" and possibly prevented the Christmas Day attempted terror attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.

Assuming this is true (and really, I don't think it is), what does Obama gain by telling the entire world that we "should have" stopped it? Why are he and other intelligence "officials" going back to specific discussions they were tracking out of sheer hindsight? We can all agree that, despite Secretary Napolitano's initial claims that the "system worked", the system failed miserably. My question is, what does the president have to gain by airing out our intelligence dirty laundry and throwing them under the bus? The only gain I see is pure politics, but I could be mistaken.

[slappybrown]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

President Barack Obama said Tuesday that the intelligence community had bits of information that should have been pieced together that would have triggered "red flags" and possibly prevented the Christmas Day attempted terror attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.

Assuming this is true (and really, I don't think it is), what does Obama gain by telling the entire world that we "should have" stopped it? Why are he and other intelligence "officials" going back to specific discussions they were tracking out of sheer hindsight? We can all agree that, despite Secretary Napolitano's initial claims that the "system worked", the system failed miserably. My question is, what does the president have to gain by airing out our intelligence dirty laundry and throwing them under the bus? The only gain I see is pure politics, but I could be mistaken.

How does that statement benefit Obama from a "pure politics" standpoint?

But I agree with you that in general, it was an odd thing to say. I saw the headline and

[shafnutz05]

How does that statement benefit Obama from a "pure politics" standpoint?

But I agree with you that in general, it was an odd thing to say. I saw the headline and

I guess as far as putting the onus on the intelligence agencies and the "system", thus deflecting any blame from himself. That being said, I do think the "system" is to blame...I am not one of those kneejerk people that thinks this guy got on that plane because Obama is president. I just thought it was a little bizarre for Obama to come out and start talking about our intelligence data so freely.

Reading some of the comments on other websites about this is hilarious. An American tourist that was returning from Uganda via Amsterdam said that he saw a well-dressed man helping this guy get on the airplane without a vaild passport. Allegedly, he was trying to pass him off as a poor Sudanese refugee. The conspiracy theorists are screaming that this is proof of some kind of CIA or similar involvement because the supposed "helper" was wearing a suit. Do you really think an intelligence agent would be dumb enough to show his face in a major airport dressed conspicuously in a sharp suit?

[slappybrown]

How does that statement benefit Obama from a "pure politics" standpoint?

But I agree with you that in general, it was an odd thing to say. I saw the headline and

I guess as far as putting the onus on the intelligence agencies and the "system", thus deflecting any blame from himself. That being said, I do think the "system" is to blame...I am not one of those kneejerk people that thinks this guy got on that plane because Obama is president. I just thought it was a little bizarre for Obama to come out and start talking about our intelligence data so freely.

Reading some of the comments on other websites about this is hilarious. An American tourist that was returning from Uganda via Amsterdam said that he saw a well-dressed man helping this guy get on the airplane without a vaild passport. Allegedly, he was trying to pass him off as a poor Sudanese refugee. The conspiracy theorists are screaming that this is proof of some kind of CIA or similar involvement because the supposed "helper" was wearing a suit. Do you really think an intelligence agent would be dumb enough to show his face in a major airport dressed conspicuously in a sharp suit?

I don't think blaming the intelligence community gets him off the hook; they operate at the direction of his appointees. The general public isn't going to distinguish between the two post 9/11.

[Hockeynut!]

Reading some of the comments on other websites about this is hilarious.

Did you ever visit AboveTopSecret? It's interesting and ludicrous at the same time. I love it.

[shafnutz05]

I don't think blaming the intelligence community gets him off the hook; they operate at the direction of his appointees. The general public isn't going to distinguish between the two post 9/11.

Very true.....there is no question this is on him, regardless of where the lapse occurred. And let's not forget, if the fuse would have been constructed properly, we would be talking about hundreds of deaths right now on Christmas Day. Like Bush or not, after 9/11, we did not see one more attack on American soil for the entire rest of his presidency. This attack would look a heck of a lot worse than it does now.

One thing is for sure......Janet Napolitano needs to step down. Since day one, she has looked like a complete deer in headlights. Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge both had solid experience dealing with issues related to crime and terrorism. I am not really sure what her qualifications were, but she has looked and sounded like a total buffoon since Obama nominated her.

[shafnutz05]

Reading some of the comments on other websites about this is hilarious.

Did you ever visit AboveTopSecret? It's interesting and ludicrous at the same time. I love it.

Someone else mentioned this website....I absolutely have to check it out. Here is their rundown today:

-CIA behind plane attack
-Israeli body snatchers
-Confirmed FBI coverup of plane attack

Classic....I forget who said he posted this in their forums, but I would love to put a gigantic on there

[shafnutz05]

By the way hockeynut....HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!! I hope you are not working today (or at least not working hard )

[Hockeynut!]

Thanks, shafnutz05! I'm self employed as a photographer and this is my slow season, so I don't have much going on.

[shafnutz05]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyh ... americans/

Best article I have seen regarding this whole situation I have seen. A lot of analysis here that I didn't really think of before.

[PensFanInDC]

[Gaucho]

[Firebird]

Odds of a terrorist attack majorly effecting the global markets....look at that key.

[doublem]

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/ind ... 0/hysteria" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What this actually illustrates is that many people are addicted to the excitement and fear of Terrorist melodramas. They crave some of that awesome 9/12 energy, where we overnight became The Greatest Generation and -- unified and resolute -- rose to the challenge of a Towering, Evil Enemy. Armao is angry and upset because the leader didn't oblige her need to re-create that high drama by flamboyantly flying back to Washington to create a tense storyline, pick up a bullhorn, stand on some rubble, and personally make her feel "safe." Maureen Dowd similarly complained today that Obama "appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253."