ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[HoreTore]

Well, look at the crime committed by illegal immigrants.

No, we are talking about terrorism, not crime.

If you want to argue for tight borders because of crime, fine. Go do that. Just don't mix terrorism into it, as it has nothing to do with it.

[Vincent Butler]

No, we are talking about terrorism, not crime.

If you want to argue for tight borders because of crime, fine. Go do that. Just don't mix terrorism into it, as it has nothing to do with it.

That particular post, I was not including terrorism as a reason to close the border.

[HoreTore]

That particular post, I was not including terrorism as a reason to close the border.

And I don't really care if you want to close a border or not, because the issue discussed is terrorism and not general border control.

The only thing I'm interested in pointing out, is that trying to prevent terrorism by closing a border is daft.

[Brenus]

"At 5:10 this senior law enforcement official suggests replicating Israeli measures on the southern border." Tunnels? So, USA will bomb Mexico when they will start to dig? Senior Law Enforcement Official lost a good moment to think and shut-up...

[Crandar]

At 5:10 this senior law enforcement official suggests replicating Israeli measures on the southern border.

It will achieve nothing.
In the winter, when the Colorado river will freeze, you should be prepared for hordes of refugees fleeing from Caliph Attila.

[Xiahou]

Zero is certainly possible, and I would agree strongly probable as well. Faked or valid credentials are a far safer way to make entry and are almost certainly both the prime choice and the preferred choice.

The "terrorists sneaking across our Southern Border" is a bête noir for some of our "close the border" crowd. While certainly a "possible" threat, ISIS operatives do not need to hire a coyote to get in.

Then can book a flight to Orlando with their Egyptian passport, answer "I'm going to Disney World" as move right on through.

Getting their persons thru via legal channels would be easier than crossing illegally in most cases, yes. But what about if they want to bring something with them that you can't get thru customs?

[Vincent Butler]

Careful. At the core of his words were an outright appeal to treat Mexico like Israel treats the Palestinians. We already have tunnels. But, surrounding that small, dark nugget of evil at the center of his rhetoric is a large and fluffy coating of legitimate financial woes and an appeal towards isolationism. Get enough people like him working for the Tea Party and they'd actually get somewhere--of course, they probably wouldn't be the Tea Party anymore then either.

Working for the Tea Party is kind of hard when there is not a party called the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a movement, not a political party, and all they are trying to do is bring America back to the Constitution. What the government calls extreme. Extreme, my foot. Frankly, and I am disappointed in them, the Republican party is trying to distance itself from the Tea Party movement, when the movement is really trying to get the Republican Party back to its platform. Here in Alaska, the Republican party put two more moderate candidates in to run against the conservative, with the intention of preventing him from winning. The Republicans are only hurting themselves. They are trying to do what the Democrats say they need to do in order to win. Taking your opponent's advice is never a good idea (unless it is given in a true sporting spirit). We should pressure Mexico to help stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the country. There are places in America on the border that have practically been taken over by Mexicans, and Americans are advised to stay away. That should not be happening in one's own country.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where have they told Americans to stay away?

[Sarmatian]

Getting their persons thru via legal channels would be easier than crossing illegally in most cases, yes. But what about if they want to bring something with them that you can't get thru customs?

Why would they do that, when they can get everything they need to make things go boom-boom in America?

[Beskar]

Because it wasn't mentioned elsewhere...

IS stole some Russian planes and told Putin, he is next, for when they liberate Chechnya and Caucasus. Here is a Russian Today article.

So, when will the US and Russia stop fighting over Ukraine and jump in bed together when dealing with IS?

[Fragony]

I am sure Putin is absolutily terrified.

[Pannonian]

Because it wasn't mentioned elsewhere...

IS stole some Russian planes and told Putin, he is next, for when they liberate Chechnya and Caucasus. Here is a Russian Today article.

So, when will the US and Russia stop fighting over Ukraine and jump in bed together when dealing with IS?

I don't know about the Americans, but Cameron is still sniffy about dealing with Assad.

[Vincent Butler]

Ya ya, you know what I meant. The Tea Party is a party in all but name (except, of course, that is is in their name!). If they didn't need the legitimacy of the GOP, they would be a party. In any other democracy they'd be a party. They have a lot more potential to change the political landscape than people give them credit for, and that is not a good thing. They are certainly extreme, unless you're an extremist. The platform on paper neglects to mention that without unspoken bigotry, zealotry, and hostility, there would be no platform at all. You should get your foot checked out!

How is trying to get back to our founding document extreme? Now we get to "what is extreme"? Name me instances of bigotism and especially hostility in the tea party, there MIGHT be isolated instances, but by no means exemplary of the movement as a whole. Don't know what you mean by zealotry. The bigot template is a template the media portrays of all conservatives, which is patently false.

Where have they told Americans to stay away?

I can't find it now, but I remember hearing that in some of the regions in Arizona and Texas, Americans have been told essentially, "Enter at your own risk". But I guess that is not so much illegal immigration as the drug cartels.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How is trying to get back to our founding document extreme?

Name current examples of the Constitution being violated and please provide the actual Constitutional article being infringed upon.

I can't find it now

Take your time. I'm sure if you remember this, it must have been written down somewhere....

[Tuuvi]

I can't find it now, but I remember hearing that in some of the regions in Arizona and Texas, Americans have been told essentially, "Enter at your own risk". But I guess that is not so much illegal immigration as the drug cartels.

I've heard of this too, what I remember is that some areas of empty land near the border have signs posted warning people to stay out because of the high volume of drug traffickers passing through.

I don't remember the signs being directed at anyone in particular.

EDIT: Found a picture

[Vincent Butler]

Name current examples of the Constitution being violated and please provide the actual Constitutional article being infringed upon.



Take your time. I'm sure if you remember this, it must have been written down somewhere....

Needing a permit to carry a gun, restrictions on what guns citizens can own, magazine capacity limit, can't carry into a federal installation...infringement of Second Amendment (keep and bear arms). Obama granting waivers to Obamacare...he does not have that power constitutionally to change laws at will. Obama using executive order to get his agenda passed, and threatening to do it more...laws are created by Congress, not the President (Article One). Bakery owners forced to bake cakes for same-sex marriage, schoolchildren not being allowed to talk about Jesus...violation of First Amendment (freedom of free exercise of religion). NSA spying, Pennsylvania police not needing warrants to search vehicles...violation of Fourth Amendment (free from unreasonable search and seizure).
Not a comprehensive list, but a good start.

Thanks, Tuuvi, for finding that picture.

[Brenus]

Yeah, what a shame, you can't discriminate, humiliate and exclude who you want now. I feel for the homophobes, racists and bullies. The laws protecting minorities and the weakest, what the Congress doing? Put back the blacks at the back of the buses, death for homosexuality and well, shame of the unlucky, the undeserving and the social inept, bad luck, be beggars (and good ones) or die in the streets. But not near my street. And put back these women at their places (Children, Kitchen, Church, the 3 K of AH), teach them decency and to know to submit.

[Vincent Butler]

Yeah, what a shame, you can't discriminate, humiliate and exclude who you want now. I feel for the homophobes, racists and bullies. The laws protecting minorities and the weakest, what the Congress doing? Put back the blacks at the back of the buses, death for homosexuality and well, shame of the unlucky, the undeserving and the social inept, bad luck, be beggars (and good ones) or die in the streets. But not near my street. And put back these women at their places (Children, Kitchen, Church, the 3 K of AH), teach them decency and to know to submit.

Huh? What are you talking about? Especially the last line, I have no clue what you are saying. May I point out that the Democrats were the ones fighting the civil right movement. It was Republicans who voted to end segregation. Eisenhower is the one who sent the National Guard to make sure a black student got into a regular school. The Tea Party does not support segregation or discrimination against minorities. It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for. And taking a moral stand against something such as homosexuality is NOT discrimination. Our government being based on Christian principles, accepting homosexuality is not according to the teachings of Christ or his followers. Homophobia is a made-up term designed to put a negative connotation on something contrary to the views of the left-wing news media.

[Fragony]

A phobia is an irrational fear, so easily used. So many of them, xenophobia, islamphobia, europhobia, it's a disregard of any discussion and a bit of a rethorical cheap trick that has long outstayed it's welcome, and sustainability. I don't understand why people are so edgy about homosexuality though. But I'll gladly take the honour of being called an islamphobe, xenophobe or europhobe from people I can't take serious despite my best efforts. It's just true that a particular breed of lefties are just in need of a cause to justify their existance. A cause a cause, my kingdom for a cause

Let's just turn it the other way, there is islamphilism, there is xenophilism, europhilism.

Much worse, the craving of being right when everything is crumbling around your reasoning. Egophilism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Needing a permit to carry a gun, restrictions on what guns citizens can own, magazine capacity limit, can't carry into a federal installation...infringement of Second Amendment (keep and bear arms).

This is all Constitutional. Put down the Bible and read some SCOTUS rulings. One Two

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Obama granting waivers to Obamacare...he does not have that power constitutionally to change laws at will.

This is an accusation, provide a link (proof) about this. Also Obamacare care does allow for waivers for states that request one, like Vermont which is setting up its own single payer plan. Read the bill yourself. Specifically Section 1332. It specifies that waivers must be sent to the Secretary, by which I assume it means the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a cabinet member under Obama. So yes, Obama's Administration can approve waivers. Congress passed the law, SCOTUS reviewed it, it is Constitutional.

Obama using executive order to get his agenda passed, and threatening to do it more...laws are created by Congress, not the President (Article One).

Presidents have the ability to issue executive orders, and every president has used executive orders beginning with George Washington. Executive Orders have been used from the very beginning to promote agendas. Guess what, Andrew Jackson put out an Executive Order back in 1836 that the US government needs to be paid with gold or silver only. Oh I'm sorry, that sounds like a law Congress should have passed. But they didn't pass it, and yet it was treated as law and every President can make executive orders dictating new directives as long as there is sufficient cause from the Constitution to promote this new directive.

EDIT: Btw, Obama is still 100 Executive Orders behind Bush's number. And three hundred behind Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Bakery owners forced to bake cakes for same-sex marriage,

You didn't listen to me when I talked about the 14th Amendment. It's a real thing, you should give it a read. Prohibiting store owners from discriminating based on someones background is illegal as it subjects people to an unequal protection under the laws.

schoolchildren not being allowed to talk about Jesus...violation of First Amendment (freedom of free exercise of religion).

It is not a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court actually stated the opposite. Promotion of Christianity in public schools, even if non-denominational violated the First Amendment as it still promoted a specific sect of Abrahamic religion. Engel v. Vitale. Give that one a read as well.

NSA spying,

That one is legitimate. What? Did you expect me to refute everything you said?

Pennsylvania police not needing warrants to search vehicles...violation of Fourth Amendment (free from unreasonable search and seizure).

The Federal SCOTUS has already ruled that police can search your car if there is probable cause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling was in the first paragraph stating that they are simply affirming that Pennsylvania constitution does not provide protections greater than the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, thus it upholds the SCOTUS precedent. Probable cause is specified within the 4th Amendment, so it is completely Constitutional as dictated by the SCOTUS.


Look, if you want to complain about these things. That's ok. But be honest and simply say that you disagree with these decisions on an ideological standpoint and that you want new laws and new Supreme Court justices. Don't try to spin all of this as politicians breaking the law and going against the Constitution. It's embarrassing how fast google just hands me SCOTUS cases that refute what you are saying.

[HoreTore]

I love you, ACIN.

[Pannonian]

Look, if you want to complain about these things. That's ok. But be honest and simply say that you disagree with these decisions on an ideological standpoint and that you want new laws and new Supreme Court justices. Don't try to spin all of this as politicians breaking the law and going against the Constitution. It's embarrassing how fast google just hands me SCOTUS cases that refute what you are saying.

Also, given that the gay cake affair was a court ruling, I wonder what VB would make of a president who agrees with his opinion and overrules a court to impose that opinion.

[Husar]

The number of executiv orders only becomes scary when you look at Wilson, Coolidge (hardly heard of him before) and Roosevelt.
I assume Roosevelt has some kind of Hitler-excuse, but their numbers make Obama's pale in comparison.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

[HopAlongBunny]

I still say ISIS and the splintering of Iraq are not failures but expected outcomes of American policy.
The near term outcome? The US is being asked to intervene by the very forces that were trying to drive them out mere months ago.
With support of these groups, and some thoughtful diplomacy the US could do more than merely "mend fences" in the area; they my even get the reputation as a "champion" that eluded them in Iraq 1.0

Of course the entire thing could just become an unmanageable cluster

[Ironside]

Huh? What are you talking about? Especially the last line, I have no clue what you are saying. May I point out that the Democrats were the ones fighting the civil right movement. It was Republicans who voted to end segregation. Eisenhower is the one who sent the National Guard to make sure a black student got into a regular school. The Tea Party does not support segregation or discrimination against minorities. It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for. And taking a moral stand against something such as homosexuality is NOT discrimination. Our government being based on Christian principles, accepting homosexuality is not according to the teachings of Christ or his followers. Homophobia is a made-up term designed to put a negative connotation on something contrary to the views of the left-wing news media.

Southern strategy, remember. Now I've actually red up on how the chain of events was. The Democrats started to accept desegregation, so the "dixicrats" who wanted segregation stopped voting at all. Enter the Republican Barry Goldwater, also known as "mr Conservative" and is credited to be influencial on the libertarian movement (he was certainly for a small goverment). He lost badly 1964, but the interesting part is this: He won the South and (almost) nothing else. He was the anti-Eisenhower in voting patterns. He won states that had been voting only Democrat since 1872. He won the dixicrats.

The influence of the religious right is later (starts during Regan) and something Goldwater opposed.

Nixon made this shift into something that could win elections and the name comes from his time. After that, the south starts to vote mostly Republican.

That's the link between what happened to the pro-segregation people in US politics, who also like low goverment influence and the Republicans and the Tea Party. Add having influences from the religious right (that isn't libertarian, but are a part of the Tea Party) and the Tea Party got a some wells that taints their libertarianism to draw upon.

And Husar produced the link that illustrates this perfectly with images. Lincon won the states, that are part of today's democratic core

And Christ and his followers said nothing about homosexuality. The Biblical mention is Sodom(y) and Gomorrah, aka the Old Testament.

[Viking]

EDIT: Found a picture

Why Do They Have to Capitalise It Like That? Fire The Sign Maker!

[Brenus]

“A phobia is an irrational fear” So using homophobes is accurate: Irrational fear of gays and lesbians. So irrational that they want to punish a sexual orientation based on fear generated by a book of fiction, that what I call an irrational fear.

“I have no clue what you are saying” Yes you do. And the proof of it is you try to answer it.

“It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for.” Conservatives in the past always backed-up slavery, anti-Semitism, anti-unions and so one. They are still against States and Taxes but are happy to have Police Forces, Justice and Law-enforcement Agencies to protect their properties and businesses, they are happy to use roads to carry their goods, schools to train their workers but not to pay for it etc. They are in favour of stability (meaning them to keep the upper position) and crushed (and crush) any opposition. And to call of a need of victims from the left is denying reality. Minorities need protection from the State in an oppressive majority in order to gain just equality. And your sentence about gay marriage and “Christian based country” (which by the way is utterly wrong and false) proves it.

[Vincent Butler]

This is all Constitutional. Put down the Bible and read some SCOTUS rulings. One Two


This is an accusation, provide a link (proof) about this. Also Obamacare care does allow for waivers for states that request one, like Vermont which is setting up its own single payer plan. Read the bill yourself. Specifically Section 1332. It specifies that waivers must be sent to the Secretary, by which I assume it means the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a cabinet member under Obama. So yes, Obama's Administration can approve waivers. Congress passed the law, SCOTUS reviewed it, it is Constitutional.


Presidents have the ability to issue executive orders, and every president has used executive orders beginning with George Washington. Executive Orders have been used from the very beginning to promote agendas. Guess what, Andrew Jackson put out an Executive Order back in 1836 that the US government needs to be paid with gold or silver only. Oh I'm sorry, that sounds like a law Congress should have passed. But they didn't pass it, and yet it was treated as law and every President can make executive orders dictating new directives as long as there is sufficient cause from the Constitution to promote this new directive.

EDIT: Btw, Obama is still 100 Executive Orders behind Bush's number. And three hundred behind Dwight D. Eisenhower.


You didn't listen to me when I talked about the 14th Amendment. It's a real thing, you should give it a read. Prohibiting store owners from discriminating based on someones background is illegal as it subjects people to an unequal protection under the laws.


It is not a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court actually stated the opposite. Promotion of Christianity in public schools, even if non-denominational violated the First Amendment as it still promoted a specific sect of Abrahamic religion. Engel v. Vitale. Give that one a read as well.



That one is legitimate. What? Did you expect me to refute everything you said?



The Federal SCOTUS has already ruled that police can search your car if there is probable cause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling was in the first paragraph stating that they are simply affirming that Pennsylvania constitution does not provide protections greater than the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, thus it upholds the SCOTUS precedent. Probable cause is specified within the 4th Amendment, so it is completely Constitutional as dictated by the SCOTUS.


Look, if you want to complain about these things. That's ok. But be honest and simply say that you disagree with these decisions on an ideological standpoint and that you want new laws and new Supreme Court justices. Don't try to spin all of this as politicians breaking the law and going against the Constitution. It's embarrassing how fast google just hands me SCOTUS cases that refute what you are saying.

Lot of things to respond to, I will do it in order. First, put down the Bible? Why? It wasn't even a part of that argument. And it is the basis of everything I believe, and what our country was founded on. Read the words of our founders, we WERE established on Christian principles, here is are two remarks by John Adams.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

Here is a link if anyone cares to read more.
http://faithofourfathers.net/

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.
Second Amendment. Look at the meaning of the word "infringed", especially in an older dictionary. Now certain people such as criminals forfeit those rights by committing crimes, I think everybody agrees that criminals, especially such as murderers, should lose at least their freedom. So some people lose their rights based on their actions; the mentally ill, I am kind of torn on that one. It would not be good for the criminally insane to get their hands on a gun, so my dilemma. Back then, though, the insane were locked up, so I guess that was grounds for losing freedom. But restricting where I can carry a gun is definitely not according to the Second Amendment.

The waivers I am talking about, I did not mean for states, I meant for certain groups, such as the ones who "passed" Obamacare (I know they have their own insurance plans already), and they changed definitionsdefinitions of who qualified for an exemption. Besides, as our illustrious Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, ruling the fine if you don't get coverage as a tax, that makes it a revenue bill, which should have originated in the House of Representatives. It originated in the Senate. Oh, and what about delaying implementation of certain parts of the bill such as the employer mandate? That is changing the law, which Congress alone can do.
Onto executive orders. Yes, the President has executive power for when immediate executive action is needed. Executive orders are never specifically granted, by the way, but are implied. But if Congress is not doing what he wants, he does NOT have the power to create a law by executive order. If he has that power, that makes him a dictator, and Congress is then irrelevant. It is not, "the President wants, the President gets". Obama has stated he will bypass Congress if necessary with executive orders. That is against the Constitution, and if he tries it he will have violated his oath of upholding the Constitution.

14th Amendment. The STATE cannot deny those rights, individuals can refuse service. Many stores say they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And homosexuality is not just condemned in the Old Testament. Read Romans 1, homosexuality is still wrong. Read Jude verse 7. Read 1 Corinthians 6. Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
Schoolchildren being told not to talk about Jesus, or punished for praying over their food. First Amendment guarantees right to FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Children being allowed to talk about their faith is not a government promoting any religion. And besides, the context of the First Amendment was the institution of a state religion. While we are on religion in schools, the Supreme Court has ruled Secular Humanism to be a religion as well. Hmm.

NSA spying, um…free from unlawful searches. The founders would turn over in their graves if they found out the government was spying on citizens (and our allies, including Chancellor Merkel's cell phone). Listening to calls going out of country may have some legality, I don't know all the laws associated with that, but on normal citizens? Definitely not. At least not according to original intent, not without probable cause. And the Pennsylvania ruling essentially gives officers carte blanche to search cars at will, all the officer has to do is come up with some reason. And would our founders have consented to allow search without warrants? We are not the founders, but my personal opinion is that they would not, though that is subjective. The warrant would be issued upon probable cause, and then the search.
Pannonian, the President does not have power to overrule a court, so that is a moot point.
Brennus, it is a particular phrase I don't get, I get most of what he is saying, and that is what I am answering.

[Pannonian]

Pannonian, the President does not have power to overrule a court, so that is a moot point.

So why did you point to that as an example of America no longer being democratic? What's a court ruling to do with democracy? Would you prefer your democracy to override your republic, since your republic is coming with stuff you don't like?

[a completely inoffensive name]

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

EDIT: So unless this is not clear, let me explain further. Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent:

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right.

Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.