Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-22-2014 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2945978)
They actually got something done?

Obama signs bipartisan jobs bill: "Let's do this more often" | MSNBC

Ho-Lee-Shit, a snowball in hell must be melting.


If only Biden wouldn't have talked, it would have been perfect.

Galaxy 07-22-2014 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mckerney (Post 2945972)
In another ruling a 4th Circuit Court panel upheld the subsidies today.


Think this will go to the Supreme Court?

Dutch 07-22-2014 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2945879)
Except it takes two to approve a union contract. Blaming the union in isolation is just factually and logically incorrect.


That's fair, I guess, I'm not really sure where or when the checks and balances of union power is brushed to the side to the point where Detroit happens. I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around though.

gstelmack 07-22-2014 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2945978)
They actually got something done?

Obama signs bipartisan jobs bill: "Let's do this more often" | MSNBC

Ho-Lee-Shit, a snowball in hell must be melting.


There's probably lots of pork for everyone in it, while the taxpayers get screwed again.

gstelmack 07-22-2014 06:41 PM

Heh, $2.4 billion to explain to employers that training their employees is good.

RainMaker 07-22-2014 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2945806)
Unions gone wild.


Blaming employees for a company paying them too much.

RainMaker 07-22-2014 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2945978)
They actually got something done?

Obama signs bipartisan jobs bill: "Let's do this more often" | MSNBC

Ho-Lee-Shit, a snowball in hell must be melting.


Corporate welfare is one thing both parties can agree on.

JonInMiddleGA 07-22-2014 08:22 PM

On the basis that this thread is often a general political catch-all ...

Former Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr has been soundly trounced by a (I guess) tea party backed former state rep in his bid to return to Congress. Barry Loudermilk will replace Phil Gingery (who resigned for a failed bid for the Senate nomination).

edit to add: There is no (D) candidate for the office so the winner of tonight's runoff knows they advance in November.

JonInMiddleGA 07-22-2014 08:27 PM

It's too early to call the other two House runoffs in Georgia but the more tea party supported candidate currently leads in both.

Senate race (which could turn out to be an actual race in November) too close to call with only about 1,000 votes between them in the first 300,000 ballots cast

JonInMiddleGA 07-22-2014 08:54 PM

Okay, AP has now called all three GOP House primary runoffs ... tea party backed candidates take two out of three (including my district), losing in Jack Kingston's old seat* in/around Savannah to a 20+ year state legislator.

*Kingston resigned in order to get in an absolute dogfight for the U.S. Senate vacancy ... that's going to go all night looks like, challenger leads by about 2,000 votes out of over 400,000

SirFozzie 07-22-2014 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2945946)


And the full panel of judges (7 D and 4 R) will likely reverse that decision

Dutch 07-22-2014 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2946034)
Corporate welfare is one thing both parties can agree on.


These are government employees...not private corporation employees...but yeah, this is straight up welfare as far as I can tell. Anyway, good thing they are finally modernizing their training programs (At a cost of $2.4 billion dollars!) because these dudes (and gals) are makin' bank!

Quote:

Nineteen percent of federal employees earned salaries of $100,000 or more in 2009. The average federal worker's pay was $71,208 compared with $40,331 in the private sector, although under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, most menial or lower paying jobs have been outsourced to private contractors.[14] In 2010, there were 82,034 workers, 3.9% of the federal workforce, making more than $150,000 annually, compared to 7,240 in 2005.[15]
... according to wiki at least.

JPhillips 07-22-2014 10:10 PM

The intent of the ACA was completely clear, both in the rest of the law and in the statements made during construction. The subsidies may still get overturned, but anyone that votes that way sure as hell shouldn't claim they are originalists.

JonInMiddleGA 07-22-2014 10:18 PM

Former CEO David Perdue beats veteran GOP Rep Jack Kingston.

Pollsters missed this one pretty much across the board What to Watch For in Georgia’s Republican Senate Runoff | FiveThirtyEight

Seems like turnout miscalculation was a big part of the difference

Interesting trivial (or is it?) note from the upcoming November Senate race in Georgia: Both candidates roots are in Warner Robins/Houston County. Both have been gone from the state for long stretches, just kind of unusual to see two statewide candidates here be from the same county (next door to Macon, home of Robins AFB) and so far from metro Atlanta.

molson 07-22-2014 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2946057)
The intent of the ACA was completely clear, both in the rest of the law and in the statements made during construction. The subsidies may still get overturned, but anyone that votes that way sure as hell shouldn't claim they are originalists.


Originalism is about constitutional interpretation, not statutory interpretation.

"Conservatives," in the judicial sense, tend to show more judicial restraint and interpret statutes as written.

ISiddiqui 07-23-2014 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2946057)
The intent of the ACA was completely clear, both in the rest of the law and in the statements made during construction. The subsidies may still get overturned, but anyone that votes that way sure as hell shouldn't claim they are originalists.


Um... most originalists don't believe in legislative intent (to add to what molson said). Originalism in this day and age (and what Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy is) is a form of textualism that looks to the original meaning of the words at the time they were written.

More and more, I think people who slam originalism (I'm not an originalist, mind) have no clue what it means.

JPhillips 07-23-2014 07:35 AM

I don't think it's that simple. Edwin Meese, way back in the eighties said:
Quote:

"jurisprudence of original intention."

Here's Heritage's list of traits of an originalist:

Quote:

The evident meaning of the words.
The meaning according to the lexicon of the times.
The meaning in context with other sections of the Constitution.
The meaning according to the words by the Framer suggesting the language.
The elucidation of the meaning by debate within the Constitutional Convention. The historical provenance of the words, particularly their elections history.
The words in the context of the contemporaneous social, economic, and political events.
The words in the context of the revolutionary struggle.
The words in the context of the political philosophy shared by the Founding generation, or by the particular interlocutors at the Convention.
Historical, religious, and philosophical authority put forward by the Framers.
The commentary in the ratification debates.
The commentary by contemporaneous interpreters, such as Publius in The Federalist.
The subsequent historical practice by the Founding generation to exemplify the under*stood meaning (e.g., the actions of President Washington, the First Congress, and Chief Justice Marshall).
Early judicial interpretations.
Evidence of long-standing traditions that demonstrate the peoples understanding of the words.

I think the "meaning in context" is what's relevant to this discussion.

Here's Scalia arguing for finding the intent based on hisorical research:

Quote:

Scalia pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court case in which several D.C. residents challenged the District’s ban on handguns and restrictions on other firearms. Defenders of the law said the right to “bear arms” as outlined in the Second Amendment had an exclusively military meaning, but a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court showed the meaning was different by looking at historical texts.

The right to have arms for personal use for self-defense was regarded as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, Scalia said.

Now at the end of the day I think a lot of originalism is just a broad term for doing whatever I want, but I do think it's more than a strict look at the definitions of terms. The intentions of the Founding Fathers certainly play a part in the Constitutional analysis.

flere-imsaho 07-23-2014 08:09 AM

Quote:

The right to have arms for personal use for self-defense was regarded as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, Scalia said.

And yet that society ended up deciding it was willing to give up that right.

This is the problem I have with Scalia / "originalists". Knowing the intent of the framers is good, and important, but must be balanced with the march of history.

Will we still have supreme court judges basing their opinions significantly on the framers' intent* in 2500? I hope not.


*By "framers' intent", I mean one of two things. To me, we should distinguish between what they said regarding how the government should operate including how decisions should be approached, and specifics regarding actual laws and rights. The framers' views on the former are, IMO, always going to be relevant and this and the quality of the U.S. Constitution are why I'd always resist attempting to completely remake it. But the framers' views on the latter are bound in time, and increasingly irrelevant with each passing year.

molson 07-23-2014 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2946084)
I don't think it's that simple. Edwin Meese, way back in the eighties said:

Here's Heritage's list of traits of an originalist:

I think the "meaning in context" is what's relevant to this discussion.

Here's Scalia arguing for finding the intent based on hisorical research:

Now at the end of the day I think a lot of originalism is just a broad term for doing whatever I want, but I do think it's more than a strict look at the definitions of terms. The intentions of the Founding Fathers certainly play a part in the Constitutional analysis.


Again, they're talking about constitutional interpretation, not statutory interpretation.

It really doesn't matter though, if's a good outcome for liberals, you'll think it's the right legal decision, if it's a good outcome for conservatives, you'll think they were biased.

Or if you're instead now claiming that real judicial conservatism is actually about focusing on intent of legislature and not the words of the statute, will you criticize the Democrat-appointed judges (and the dissent in this case) if they take that "conservative" approach and focus on the intent of legislature and not the words of ACA? Somehow I'm going to guess not.

Edit: It's usually a slam-dunk argument in a court with more conservative judges to argue, "if legislature meant X, they should have just said X". That really speaks to conservatives, the idea of judicial restraint, separation of powers, not "legislating from the bench". A liberal judge is more likely to consider the spirit of the law, more willing to infer intent from circumstances, just like they're more open to the idea of an evolving constitution. The precedent describes the applicable standards in such a way that neither stance is really wrong. (And having read the opinion now, in the federal courts, unlike in my state, the law is that a court will not interpret a statute in such a way that leads to an absurd result, regardless of the language used by the legislature. So the majority did that analysis and concluded the result here wasn't "absurd" - they majority also cited a bunch of federal cases that warned against using that "absurd" standard too broadly, because it risks undermining the legislature when the court is making the determination as to whether a law is good policy or not. In my state, which is very conservative, judicially and otherwise, that's not even a thing anymore. The law means what the law says, unless the words are truly ambiguous, in which case, the courts can use tools of statutory interpretation, like looking at the legislative history, the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the legislation, and other similar legislation, etc. Liberal judges are much more willing to use those tools more quickly in interpreting statutes.

flere-imsaho 07-23-2014 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2946104)
It really doesn't matter though, if's a good outcome for liberals, you'll think it's the right legal decision, if it's a good outcome for conservatives, you'll think they were biased.


This attitude is just as bad as a blind partisan one.

flere-imsaho 07-23-2014 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2946104)
Or if you're instead now claiming that real judicial conservatism is actually about focusing on intent of legislature and not the words of the statute, will you criticize the Democrat-appointed judges (and the dissent in this case) if they take that "conservative" approach and focus on the intent of legislature and not the words of ACA? Somehow I'm going to guess not.


What a silly notion. You're trying to manufacture an outrage here where none exists.

And let's get back (everyone groans) to asking what is a conservative judge. An originalist? A supporter of the current Republican party? Someone who is just resistant to change and tries to conserve the status quo?

What's your definition here?

molson 07-23-2014 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2946110)
What a silly notion. You're trying to manufacture an outrage here where none exists.

And let's get back (everyone groans) to asking what is a conservative judge. An originalist? A supporter of the current Republican party? Someone who is just resistant to change and tries to conserve the status quo?

What's your definition here?


When it comes to statutory interpretation, I really can't explain it any more than I did in my last post. (But maybe you posted before I made my edit).

But if I'm wrong, and you guys are right, and "originalism" really means focusing on the intent of the legislature when interpreting a statute, and that's a conservative thing, then why shouldn't you criticize liberal judges, like the dissent in this case, who take that very approach in interpreting a statute? How is that a silly notion?

molson 07-23-2014 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2946108)
This attitude is just as bad as a blind partisan one.


It's not an attitude it's an observation. An observation about an attitude expressed here. Unless you rule in such a way that leads to a most liberal-friendly outcome, you're biased and disingenuous (or worse). It's not just disagreeing with a legal opinion. Plenty of brilliant people disagree on how to apply these standards. I just don't like the arrogance of this attitude that if it doesn't have my desired policy outcome, they just didn't do it right and are lying about their reasons.

larrymcg421 07-23-2014 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2946114)
It's not an attitude it's an observation. An observation about an attitude expressed here. Unless you rule in such a way that leads to a most liberal-friendly outcome, you're biased and disingenuous (or worse). It's not just disagreeing with a legal opinion. Plenty of brilliant people disagree on how to apply these standards. I just don't like the arrogance of this attitude that if it doesn't have my desired policy outcome, they just didn't do it right and are lying about their reasons.


That's not how I read his post. He said that if someone comes to this decision, they are not an originalist. This post does not attack people who arrive at that same decision (counter to what he wants) and has not claimed to be an originalist.

flere-imsaho 07-23-2014 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2946112)
When it comes to statutory interpretation, I really can't explain it any more than I did in my last post. (But maybe you posted before I made my edit).


I posted before your edit.

Quote:

But if I'm wrong, and you guys are right, and "originalism" really means focusing on the intent of the legislature when interpreting a statute, and that's a conservative thing, then why shouldn't you criticize liberal judges, like the dissent in this case, who take that very approach in interpreting a statute? How is that a silly notion?

I'm not sure I'm claiming those things at all. To be honest, I'm finding you hard to understand.

flere-imsaho 07-23-2014 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2946114)
It's not an attitude it's an observation.


That's how you choose to perceive yourself. But your original statement tars both sides with the same brush of being non-constructive to the general debate. Which is an attitude perhaps, yes, borne out of observation, but an attitude nonetheless. And I would caution you in using it, especially as you have been accused, with grounds, several times in the past for using false equivalence to advance your points.

molson 07-23-2014 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2946121)
That's not how I read his post. He said that if someone comes to this decision, they are not an originalist. This post does not attack people who arrive at that same decision (counter to what he wants) and has not claimed to be an originalist.


He said "anyone that votes that way sure as hell shouldn't claim they are originalists." and then "I think a lot of originalism is just a broad term for doing whatever I want." I could be wrong, but I took that to mean that he thought the majority in the D.C. Circuit case was being disingenuous. Because if they were truly "orginalists", as many conservatives are, they they would have looked at the "original" intent of the legislature. That's just objectively wrong. That's not what that term means in any way. It is conservatives who are more likely to interpret a statute by its words alone, and it's conservatives are much less likely to use tools of statutory interpretation to determine the "real" legislative intent.

I guess someone could be an "orginalist" in terms of statutory interpretation, but that person would be more liberal. And it'd just be a confusing term to use because it means something completely different than how that term is normally used.

Edit: This is one of those cases where liberal policy actually matches up with liberal judicial philosophy. In that a liberal judicial philosophy (relying heavily on statutory interpretation tools) would tend to lead to a liberal-friendly outcome. A conservative judicial philosophy (relying more on the words of the statute) would tend to lead to a conservative-friendly outcome. It's when those things don't match up like that that you can really see who's being disingenuous, and who is being persuaded by policy outcome.

AENeuman 07-23-2014 10:38 AM

Politics really does cause gridlock. Last night I got stuck in the Obama motorcade and this morning my wife is delayed because of a Hilary Clinton event.

JPhillips 07-23-2014 01:47 PM

So this is what happens when I take my daughter to Chinese camp!

I'll address a few points, but I'm going to skip the whole liberals are poopieheads bit.

First, my understanding of originalism is that the original intent of the statute and the authors/supporters is part of the equation when there is disputed interpretation. It isn't simply a slavish adherence to language. I believe I saw an article a while back where Scalia said he wasn't a constructionist, but was instead an originalist because he wasn't simply looking at the disputed words.

In this case I think any originalist would be able to look at the rest of the law and the statements of those that wrote/supported the law and see that the intention was clear. You can also through in the precedent of letting executive agencies set the rules if you'd like. To slavishly look at this piece of text, but ignore everything else is certainly not looking at the original intent.

Secondly, in the posts above there has been a lot of conflation between intent and interpret. I'm not arguing that interpretation varies through time and place, but that original intent does matter for originalists.

Thirdly, I believe almost every Supreme court justice is or has been a political actor working in the political arena. Very few have consistently risen above their own political desires over the course of their term. I certainly believe this is true about the court over the past three or four decades. I thought that was the same opinion expressed by molson at various points. I'm not sure why it sets him off now.

Lastly, I may very well be wrong on my understanding of originalism, but there is no dis-ingenuousness about my argument. That's the one thing that drives me crazy at FOFC. We can disagree or be incorrect without being disingenuous.

molson 07-23-2014 05:21 PM

I don't think you were being disingenuous at all. I perceived that you and some other posters have been too quick to label the majority opinions and legal analysis that led to those opinions as being disingenuous.

There have been a bunch of appellate opinions we've discussed here recently. It seems as though every time there's one with an outcome that's not liberal-friendly there's just this initial rush of resentment about how awful the decision is, about how the majority are just biased old men who are result-oriented, how they're hypocrites who went against their previous claimed values, etc. Even when the decision was unanimous or close to it. And even when the evidence of hypocrisy is some previous case that dealt with an entirely different standard or issue. It seems people can only go one way on these opinions, or else they're biased and hypocritical and disingenuous.

I'm not sure exactly why it frustrates me some - I know that I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the role of the judiciary and separation of powers, and I feel like you're saying that someone leaning that way is just automatically biased and inherently incorrect. And if a case has an outcome that isn't liberal-friendly, then it's also probably just based on dishonest legal analysis. To me, it's just silly for people on one political side to constantly attack the other side as being biased and result-oriented. It's not an exclusively conservative trait.

And originalism has absolutely nothing to do with statutory interpretation. There's nothing inconsistent about being originalist and being reluctant to go beyond the plain language of a statute.

In fact, a court cannot lawfully look beyond the words of a statute unless those words are ambiguous, or unless the result would be absurd if the law was interpreted as written. Every judge cites that standard in every opinion that analyzes a statute. It's a completely different standard than you would use to interpret the constitution.

There's just a lot of grey area surrounding when exactly a statute is "ambiguous", and when exactly a result would be "absurd". Conservatives will tend to find that fewer statutes are ambiguous, and will rely on the words of a statute more often, and liberals are more willing to find ambiguities and absurdities, and thus will more often look outside the statute for evidence of legislative intent. Both approaches are valid and consistent with precedent and the applicable standards. Just because someone doesn't like an outcome, it doesn't mean the the approach to get there was somehow not on the level. In this case, especially, relying on the words of a statute and being more reluctant to go beyond them is absolutely a conservative trait. So it's frustrating to read someone trying to frame THAT approach as being somehow dishonest or hypocritical or whatever. You just can't win. Unless the decision is liberal-friendly, the legal analysis must be wrong somehow.

I really think when a case gets to the Supreme Court or a federal appellate court, reasonable minds could disagree on most cases. I don't look at the constitution or statutes the same way as Elena Kagan, but she is way smarter than I am, is a much better writer than I am, and her philosophies on this stuff are as valid as anybody's. I feel like some people on that side of things here don't have the same respect for different philosophies. I think there's dozens of examples of that in the last few months here with the recent appellate opinions. Including the D.C. Circuit one, and accusing the majority of acting inconsistently with originalism. And the abortion buffer zone case, where part of the attack was that the majority was disingenuous and hypocritical because it ruled the other way in Moss v. Wood, which was a completely different case about qualified immunity, with a completely different standard applied.

ISiddiqui 07-23-2014 10:42 PM

Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the entire thing as its is about the progression of the term and why tarring, say, Justice Scalia with the Original Intent part makes no sense whatsoever (esp considering his quote in the Original Meaning part).

Quote:

Original intent
Main article: Original intent
The original form of originalism was known as intentionalism, or original intent, and entailed applying laws based on the subjective intention of its authors. For instance, the authors of the U.S. Constitution would be the group of Founding Fathers that drafted it. The intentionalist methodology involves studying the writings of its authors, or the records of the Philadelphia Convention, for clues as to their intent.

There are two kinds of intent analysis, reflecting two meanings of the word intent. The first, a rule of common law construction during the Founding Era, is functional intent. The second is motivational intent. To understand the difference, one can use the metaphor of an architect who designs a Gothic church with flying buttresses. The functional intent of flying buttresses is to prevent the weight of the roof from spreading the walls and causing a collapse of the building, which can be inferred from examining the design as a whole. The motivational intent might be to create work for his brother-in-law who is a flying buttress subcontractor. Using original intent analysis of the first kind, we can discern that the language of Article III of the U.S. Constitution was to delegate to Congress the power to allocate original and appellate jurisdictions, and not to remove some jurisdiction, involving a constitutional question, from all courts. That would suggest that the decision was wrong in Ex Parte McCardle.[11]

Original intent evolves
However, a number of problems inherent in intentionalism, and a fortiori when that theory is applied to the Constitution: most of the Founders did not leave discussions of what their intent was in 1787, and while a few did, there is no reason to think that they should be dispositive of what the rest thought. The theory was challenged in a string of Law review articles attacking Robert Bork and the intentionalist process,[12] prior to his abortive Senate confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. Specifically, original intent was seen as lacking good answers to three important questions: whether a diverse group such as the framers even had a single intent; if they did, whether it could be determined from two centuries' distance; and whether the framers themselves would have supported original intent.[13]

In response to this, a different strain of originalism, articulated by (among others) Antonin Scalia,[14] Robert Bork,[15] and Randy Barnett,[16] came to the fore. This is dubbed original meaning.

Original meaning
Main article: Original meaning
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that interpreting what was meant by someone who wrote a law was not trying to "get into his mind" because the issue was "not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used."[17] This is the essential precept of modern Originalism.

The most robust and widely cited form of originalism, original meaning emphasizes how the text would have been understood by a reasonable person in the historical period during which the constitution was proposed, ratified, and first implemented. For example, economist Thomas Sowell[18] notes that phrases like "due process" and "freedom of the press" had a long established meaning in English law, even before they were put into the Constitution of the United States." Applying this form involves studying dictionaries and other writings of the time (for example, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England; see "Matters rendered moot by originalism", infra) to establish out what particular terms meant. See Methodology, infra).

Justice Scalia, one of the most forceful modern advocates for originalism, defines himself as belonging to the latter category:

The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.[19]

Though there may be no evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be like a statute, this fact does not matter under Scalia's approach. Adherence to original meaning is explicitly divorced from the intent of the Founders; rather, the reasons for adhering to original meaning derive from other justifications, such as the argument that the understanding of the ratifiers (the people of the several States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) should be controlling, as well as consequentialist arguments about original meaning's positive effect on rule of law.

Perhaps the clearest example to illustrate the importance of the difference between original intent and original understanding is to use the Twenty-seventh Amendment. The Twenty-seventh Amendment was proposed as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, but failed to be ratified by the required number of states for two centuries, eventually being ratified in 1992. An original intent inquiry would ask what the framers understood the amendment to mean when it was written; an original meaning inquiry would ask what the plain meaning of the text was in 1992 when it was eventually ratified.

Edward64 07-24-2014 11:50 PM

I kinda agree that Obama has been absent. He wants comprehensive immigration reform and I'm good with that but the problem is immediate, not 6-12 months in the future.

Having National Guard intercept before they come into the US and tweaking the law to expedite seems like a no brainer to me. For the ones already in, send them back and help their government setup temporary shelters, orphanages ... whatever. Essentially give them some money.


Obama weighs sending National Guard to border - CNN.com
Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration, after initially resisting the idea, is weighing whether to deploy National Guard troops to the southern border to help address a surge of migrant youth from Central America, many of them unaccompanied, a White House official told CNN.

The Pentagon and the Department of Health and Human Services sent a team earlier this week to assess Border Patrol efforts in the Rio Grande Valley, the official said, where tens of thousands of children have poured into the United States this year.

The administration's latest efforts in what most agree is a humanitarian crisis come as Washington struggles to address the matter with little optimism for a solution before Congress breaks for its month-long August recess.

Little optimism for a solution from Congress: House Speaker John Boehner accuses President Barack Obama of being "AWOL" on the crisis and flip-flopping on solutions.

A key partisan point of contention is a Republican proposal to change a 2008 law that allows Central American immigrant children to stay in the United States until they receive a hearing. That process can take months or years.

Republicans want to tweak the Bush-era law so that migrant youth from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, who do not qualify for refugee status, are sent home more quickly.

Democrats worry the expedited process will mean many will fall through the cracks and will be sent back to what many have characterized as violent situations in their countries.

Edward64 07-24-2014 11:58 PM

This didn't seem right to me.

Answering a call: Americans in Israel's military - CNN.com
Quote:

It's believed there are approximately 750 Americans currently serving in the Israeli military, according to the New York-based Friends of IDF. The group raises funds for the cultural, recreational and social needs of Israeli soldiers.

But found

1,000 Americans Are Serving in the Israeli Army and They Aren’t Alone - The Daily Beast
Quote:

For the most part, this is all legal. Prior to 1967, Americans risked losing their citizenship if they joined a foreign military or even voted in a foreign election. That year, the Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v. Rusk established that citizenship is a constitutional right and can’t be stripped involuntarily. So, you’re free to join up with whatever military that will take you, as long as you don’t engage in active hostilities against the U.S. What is illegal is recruiting within the U.S. So, traveling to Israel to join is OK, but the IDF won’t be setting up next to the U.S. Army recruiting station in Times Square any time soon.

Of course, non-state actors, such as al Qaeda, ISIS, the FSA, Libyan rebels, etc. accept Americans, but that’s frowned upon by the State Department.
:
:
The U.S. military likewise is open to non-citizens, with all active-duty personnel able to file for citizenship immediately and receive expedited treatment from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. From September 2002 to May 2013, almost 90,000 members of the Armed Forces gained citizenship.

I don't like to idea of dual citizenship. Seems to be a conflict of interest and loyalty. Pick one.

flere-imsaho 07-25-2014 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2946616)
I kinda agree that Obama has been absent. He wants comprehensive immigration reform and I'm good with that but the problem is immediate, not 6-12 months in the future.


I've seen a lot of talk about a "crisis" here. Are there actual facts about this crisis, or just more hot air from the GOP?

Edward64 07-25-2014 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2946682)
I've seen a lot of talk about a "crisis" here. Are there actual facts about this crisis, or just more hot air from the GOP?


If its not a crisis, I can easily see it become one. If parents are willing to send kids to US by themselves, and the kids are not returned quickly (or if there is doubt they will be returned), it will encourage more of the same.

JonInMiddleGA 07-25-2014 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2946682)
I've seen a lot of talk about a "crisis" here. Are there actual facts about this crisis, or just more hot air from the GOP?


So ABC, CNN, etc & et all are now just providing talking points from the GOP?

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that it's a crisis condition (note: our threshold for a "crisis" may be lower than it used to be) ... the difference in opinion seems to be more about what the crisis actually is.

Dutch 07-26-2014 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2946682)
I've seen a lot of talk about a "crisis" here. Are there actual facts about this crisis, or just more hot air from the GOP?


This is a recording...the left-wing activist you have dialed is not in service....this is a recording...the left-wing activist you have dialed is not in service....this is a recording...

:)

molson 07-26-2014 01:39 PM

Border crossings are up 500% and many of them are children on their own. The border states don't have the resources to deal with it and many of the children are being detained in poor conditions. The feds have asked some northeast states to house some of them but have been turned down by those governors.

The child migrant crisis is not just a border issue: Blue states need to step up.

ISiddiqui 07-26-2014 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2946811)
So ABC, CNN, etc & et all are now just providing talking points from the GOP?

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that it's a crisis condition (note: our threshold for a "crisis" may be lower than it used to be) ... the difference in opinion seems to be more about what the crisis actually is.


(Take a screenshot :))

I fully agree with Jon.

flere-imsaho 07-26-2014 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2946811)
So ABC, CNN, etc & et all are now just providing talking points from the GOP?


Well, it was meant to be a serious question as I haven't been following the news. I was wondering what, specifically, had happened, or increased to make it a crisis. Like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2946894)
Border crossings are up 500% and many of them are children on their own. The border states don't have the resources to deal with it and many of the children are being detained in poor conditions. The feds have asked some northeast states to house some of them but have been turned down by those governors.


Thank you molson.

JonInMiddleGA 07-26-2014 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2946910)
Well, it was meant to be a serious question as I haven't been following the news.


Fair enough, that whooshed right past me tho.

Edward64 07-27-2014 08:48 AM

Sad but I think fair description ... but does not give Obama credit for the recovering economy in the second term and effectively guaranteeing Obamacare by not losing.

Can Obama rescue his sputtering second term? | MSNBC
Quote:

Remember hope and change? Now there is only pessimism and gridlock – or at least that’s how President Obama’s dispiriting second term feels.

Fresh off his decisive re-election battle against Republican Mitt Romney, Obama vowed to pursue an ambitious laundry list of goals: stricter gun laws, meaningful immigration reform, universal pre-K, and raising the minimum wage.

So far, he’s failed to achieve any of them.

Obama has acknowledged that immigration reform – his biggest ticket item – is effectively dead. Meanwhile, thousands of migrant children continue to stream across the border.

The administration is trying to get the Veterans Affairs department back on track after a scandal around long waits at veterans’ health centers forced out the department’s secretary, Eric Shinseki. The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby birth control ruling was a blow to Obama’s signature healthcare plan. And when it comes to foreign policy, the commander-in-chief has been swamped by crises including the downing of a commercial jet in Ukraine, the deadly battle between Israel and Gaza, and a renewed insurgency in Iraq.

There’s no doubt Obama’s problems have been made worse by a gridlocked Congress and Republican lawmakers who have blocked him at every turn. But many Democrats still are frustrated by the lack of progress. And the president himself surely can’t be thrilled with how the second term has gone so far, and seems resigned to spending the next couple years eking out minor wins.
:
:
Obama has indeed made some strides in 2013 and 2014, notably the rollout, albeit a rocky one, of the Affordable Care Act. More than 10 million people now have health insurance who didn’t have it before. He’s also pressing forward with plans to withdraw the last American troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, and has used the power of his pen on a raft of other initiatives like broadening protections for LGBT federal contractors, deferring deportation for many young illegal immigrants, raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers, and pushing forward with new environmental regulations.
:
:
According to the latest Gallup poll, Obama’s overall job approval rating stood at just 39%. And a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed his handling of foreign policy hit a new low at 37%. More than half said Obama wasn’t capable of leading the country and getting the job done.

flere-imsaho 07-28-2014 09:27 AM

Another view on the Immigration Crisis, by a judge living in El Paso:

Log In - The New York Times

molson 07-30-2014 02:49 PM

Mass. Gov. Patrick signed a new abortion buffer zone bill today, that, on first glance, appears to address the concerns of the Supreme Court and fits within the parameters that pesky First Amendment. Under this one, it's not a crime just to stand on a public sidewalk near an abortion clinic, or to just talk to people there. (I think they could have gone further and proscribed "harassment" instead of just "intimidation" and "interference" but they played it safe).

The statute also cleverly allows officers to enforce a real buffer zone if there is actually a need at a given time, if peoples' access is actually being impeded. Which is much more narrowly tailored. Courts are generally much more tolerant of statutes when the government and police do things for specific reasons that can be articulated and reviewed. AND the statute creates civil actions, as well as criminal penalties, for violations.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2281

(b) A law enforcement official may order the immediate dispersal of a gathering that substantially impedes access to or departure from an entrance or a driveway to a reproductive health care facility. A dispersal order issued pursuant to this section shall include the following statements: (i) the gathering has substantially impeded access to or departure from the reproductive health care facility; (ii) each member of the gathering shall, under the penalty of arrest and prosecution, immediately disperse and cease to stand or be located within at least 25 feet of an entrance or a driveway to the reproductive health care facility; and (iii) the order shall remain in place for 8 hours or until the close of business of the reproductive health facility, whichever is earlier. This subsection shall apply during the business hours of a reproductive health care facility. This subsection shall also apply only if the 25-foot boundary is clearly marked and subsections (a) through (c), inclusive, of this section are posted outside of the reproductive health care facility.

...

(d) A person who, by force, physical act or threat of force, intentionally injures or intimidates or attempts to injure or intimidate a person who attempts to access or depart from a reproductive health care facility shall be punished, for the first offense, by a fine of not more than $2,000 or not more than 1 year in a jail or house of correction or by both such fine and imprisonment and, for each subsequent offense, by a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $50,000 or not more than 2½ years in a jail or house of correction or not more than 5 years in a state prison or by both such fine and imprisonment. For the purpose of this subsection, “intimidate” shall mean to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to that person or another.

..

(g) A person who recklessly interferes with the operation of a vehicle that attempts to enter, exit or park at a reproductive health care facility shall be punished, for the first offense, by a fine of not more than $500 or not more than 3 months in a jail or house of correction or by both such fine and imprisonment and, for each subsequent offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000 or not more than 2½ years in a jail or house of correction or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Blackadar 07-30-2014 03:38 PM


miked 07-30-2014 04:33 PM

But gays, immigrants, abortion, and Obamacare!!!!!

gstelmack 07-30-2014 04:44 PM

So Republican obstructionism has been a good thing...

JonInMiddleGA 07-30-2014 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2947757)
But gays, immigrants, abortion, and Obamacare!!!!!



3 of 4 of which I rate higher in importance than anything mentioned above.

Those are nice, but money isn't the end all & be all of the universe.

EagleFan 07-30-2014 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2947751)


Yet the median income has dropped...

Edward64 07-30-2014 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2947802)
Yet the median income has dropped...


More additional context, good and bad.

Obama’s Numbers, October Update
Quote:

America is still gaining jobs under President Obama, but millions more live in poverty, typical household incomes have not kept pace with inflation, and the federal debt is up nearly 90 percent and on pace to double before he leaves office. Stockholders, meanwhile, are far wealthier than they were the day he was sworn in.

U.S. oil production continues to boom, as do wind and solar power, while dependence on foreign oil keeps dropping. International opinion of the United States has slipped a bit, but generally remains far higher than before he took office, except in the Muslim world, where it has gotten even worse.



JPhillips 07-30-2014 10:20 PM

The continuing unemployment crisis is perhaps the greatest domestic political failure of the past 50 years. Nobody should be happy with such high unemployment over six years after the crisis.

PilotMan 07-30-2014 10:34 PM

Nobody should be happy that not even one fucker responsible for nearly destroying the entire US economy has failed to see prison or even had one charge leveled against them.

*reading Matt Taibbi's Griftopia. A must read book.

Solecismic 07-30-2014 11:19 PM



This dropped below 70% this year. Unemployment figures do not include those who give up searching for employment.

larrymcg421 07-30-2014 11:26 PM

People giving up searching for employment isn't necessarily a bad thing.

AENeuman 07-30-2014 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2947846)


This dropped below 70% this year. Unemployment figures do not include those who give up searching for employment.


I hear this "gave up looking" a lot. But isn't most of this old and retired people? Life expectancy for males going from 65 in 1950 to 74 today seems to be a huge number, for example.

JonInMiddleGA 07-30-2014 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2947854)
I hear this "gave up looking" a lot. But isn't most of this old and retired people? Life expectancy for males going from 65 in 1950 to 74 today seems to be a huge number, for example.


Anecdotally it's a group that seems to be 20s to 40s. Lord only knows I've known quite a few.

I've yet to find a concrete demographic breakdown of the group but this articleseems to suggest (I think) that about half are people that would normally be in the work force (it mentions accounting for retiring boomers, etc)

*I have no idea whether the "Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C." official that's quoted is left, right or sideways. The article is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette back in January of this year but was the only one of more than a half dozen I looked at that even referenced any sort of breakout.

AENeuman 07-31-2014 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2947857)
Anecdotally it's a group that seems to be 20s to 40s. Lord only knows I've known quite a few.

I've yet to find a concrete demographic breakdown of the group but this articleseems to suggest (I think) that about half are people that would normally be in the work force (it mentions accounting for retiring boomers, etc)

*I have no idea whether the "Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C." official that's quoted is left, right or sideways. The article is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette back in January of this year but was the only one of more than a half dozen I looked at that even referenced any sort of breakout.


It does seem there are loads of young people looking. I guess I don't understand the meaning behind the graphic. It is clearly on the decline since 1950. Is the point that it went down too much the last few years? Maybe 5 years ahead of norm? I just don't see why since beginning in 2010 10,000 baby boomers retire everyday and that's not by far the biggest most recent contribution.

JonInMiddleGA 07-31-2014 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2947859)
It does seem there are loads of young people looking. I guess I don't understand the meaning behind the graphic. It is clearly on the decline since 1950. Is the point that it went down too much the last few years? Maybe 5 years ahead of norm? I just don't see why since beginning in 2010 10,000 baby boomers retire everyday and that's not by far the biggest most recent contribution.


From that same article
Quote:

the nation's population has grown by 13.8 million while the labor force -- defined as those who are either working or looking for work -- has grown by 1.02 million.

Birth/death/aging cycles don't account for all that gap. In other words, people who would normally be looking for work aren't even trying at this point. And the number seems to be growing.

flere-imsaho 07-31-2014 08:17 AM

On McCullen v. Coakley, after giving it much thought, I've decided that I was wrong. I feel I've learned a lot from this particular episode, and am the better for it.

flere-imsaho 07-31-2014 09:01 AM

This graphic is from the Washington Post (via Andrew Sullivan's blog), and is a few days old now:




Once upon a time, when I was young and first became aware of international politics, I was pro-Palestinian. This was youthful rebellion as opposed to something I thought out: everyone I knew felt the Israelis were the victim here and I wanted to side with the victim instead.

The stance gradually eroded as I learned more and eventually I ended up relatively pro-Israeli courtesy of an Op-Ed over 10 years ago (probably more like 15) by Alan Dershowitz which spelled out with clarity the no-win situation for Israel (Dershowitz has since gone right off the deep end, but there you go).


I am 40 now, married, with 2 kids, and I have now come to this conclusion: everyone involved in this tragedy, be they Israeli or Palestinian, is at fault. They all have blood on their hands. This is not a conflict that needs to happen. This is a conflict that could absolutely be solved, but there is absolutely no will from anyone to do so, and quite a lot of will not to do so.

There's additional culpability for those who fund Hamas, as well as those who fund Israel, including, yes, the American taxpayer.

But fundamentally the key point is that we're well past the point where either side can make a claim to the moral high ground. Both sides are terrible, this conflict is terrible, and it is one of the best examples of humanity at its worst.

JonInMiddleGA 07-31-2014 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2947910)
and it is one of the best examples of humanity at its worst.


Well, that's a good description of one side of the conflict anyhow.

Dutch 07-31-2014 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2947927)
Well, that's a good description of one side of the conflict anyhow.


Agreed. Giving the terrorist group Hamas equal footing with Israel is pretty shitty.

Solecismic 07-31-2014 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2947943)
Agreed. Giving the terrorist group Hamas equal footing with Israel is pretty shitty.


I don't understand how people come to that conclusion. What would we do if Cuba started firing random missiles into Florida from the cover of their schools and residential neighborhoods? Would we try and defend ourselves, knowing that many Cuban human shields will die, or would we just take it, because any effective response will be seen as "disproportionate?" Would we accept a few people dying in Florida every now and then because they're just "Floridians" and are somehow "equal" to the Cuban terrorists who want them dead at any cost?

At least there are finally signs that the people of Gaza are angry with their elected government for starting this war.

Solecismic 07-31-2014 11:07 AM



This doesn't show both male and female participation. And, obviously, assuming current trends to extend into 2022 is an extrapolation of current policy effects, so it shouldn't be considered exact.

ISiddiqui 07-31-2014 11:09 AM

Terrorist group and Terrorist state. Seems fairly equal to me.

JonInMiddleGA 07-31-2014 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2947948)
What would we do if Cuba started firing random missiles into Florida from the cover of their schools and residential neighborhoods? Would we try and defend ourselves, knowing that many Cuban human shields will die, or would we just take it, because any effective response will be seen as "disproportionate?" Would we accept a few people dying in Florida every now and then because they're just "Floridians" and are somehow "equal" to the Cuban terrorists who want them dead at any cost?


Given the sorry state of U.S. society these days I'm happy we aren't having to answer that question at the moment.

There'd be no shortage of people rushing to defend the poor downtrodden Cubans.

ISiddiqui 07-31-2014 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2947948)
I don't understand how people come to that conclusion. What would we do if Cuba started firing random missiles into Florida from the cover of their schools and residential neighborhoods? Would we try and defend ourselves, knowing that many Cuban human shields will die, or would we just take it, because any effective response will be seen as "disproportionate?" Would we accept a few people dying in Florida every now and then because they're just "Floridians" and are somehow "equal" to the Cuban terrorists who want them dead at any cost?

At least there are finally signs that the people of Gaza are angry with their elected government for starting this war.


Cuba is, of course, a separate sovereign state. It'd be more if folks on a Native American reservation in the 1800s started doing this (obv not with rockets). The massacre of them for those things (ie, revenge for Little Big Horn as an example) is considered a black mark on the US's history now, of course.

flere-imsaho 07-31-2014 11:17 AM

Oh, Hamas as an organization is clearly worse than Israel. Don't get me wrong.

But both entities have gone so far down the rabbit hole of inhumanity and an unwavering obstinance to peace that I'm not sure the distinction really matters that much anymore.

flere-imsaho 07-31-2014 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2947948)
What would we do if Cuba started firing random missiles into Florida from the cover of their schools and residential neighborhoods? Would we try and defend ourselves, knowing that many Cuban human shields will die, or would we just take it, because any effective response will be seen as "disproportionate?" Would we accept a few people dying in Florida every now and then because they're just "Floridians" and are somehow "equal" to the Cuban terrorists who want them dead at any cost?


This is why analogies are stupid. The U.S. doesn't surround Cuba geographically. The U.S. doesn't control access to Cuba. The U.S. and Cuba haven't been actively at war with each other for decades. I could go on.


Once again, a bunch of you are having a knee-jerk reaction without actually reading what I wrote.

I'm not saying Israel's action isn't justified or necessary. I'm saying it doesn't matter: it's all horrible. We have, say, 50 years of "I'm doing this because you did that because I did that other thing because you did yet a different thing because..." with clearly no real attempt to find a lasting solution in sight. The moral high ground in this conflict has been lost in that 50-year trail of action and reaction. It's humanity at its worst. A pox on both their houses.

flere-imsaho 07-31-2014 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2947949)


This doesn't show both male and female participation. And, obviously, assuming current trends to extend into 2022 is an extrapolation of current policy effects, so it shouldn't be considered exact.


I look at this chart and the first thing I think of is demographic trends (people living longer) and the resultant need to save more for retirement (thus having to work longer, and harder), which is probably at least in part due to Baby Boomers as a group not saving much for retirement (plus two, maybe three, recessions since the late 80s.).

Blackadar 07-31-2014 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2947962)
Oh, Hamas as an organization is clearly worse than Israel. Don't get me wrong.

But both entities have gone so far down the rabbit hole of inhumanity and an unwavering obstinance to peace that I'm not sure the distinction really matters that much anymore.


This is a simple formula, starting with the variables.

Variable #1 = Israel (I)
Variable #2 = Hamas (H)
Variable #3 = Shit (s)
Variable #4 = Power (p)

Hs > 0
Is > 0
Hs > Is
Meaning that Hamas is shittier

Ip > 0
Hp > 0
Ip > Hp
Meaning Israel's shit stinks more

Is * Ip * Hs * Hp = One big stinking pile of shit

larrymcg421 07-31-2014 12:13 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing that any response would be disproportionate and that's the only way a "take it or respond" black and white scenario makes any sense as an argument. I think the human cost should be factored in and sometimes it concerns me how Israel weighs that cost into their responses. That doesn't mean I'm equating Israel and Hamas. Hamas is clearly worse, but that doesn't absolve Israel from any criticism for their own actions.

AENeuman 07-31-2014 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2947949)


This doesn't show both male and female participation. And, obviously, assuming current trends to extend into 2022 is an extrapolation of current policy effects, so it shouldn't be considered exact.


I'm guessing you are implying "current policy effects" are bad and having a negative effect?

One could say the increase of college participation going from 54% in 1992 to 64% in 2010 has a lot to do with the 20-24 decrease. And I guess the "current policy effects" have influenced that.

I have also seen where participation in disability insurance has risen from 20-50% over 20 years. Which make sense because states get to write them off the books and the fed does not have to count them as unemployed.

Edward64 07-31-2014 11:47 PM

Not sure what to think about this other than dysfunctional congress continues.

Border bills stall in House, Senate - CNN.com
Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- On what was supposed to be the last day before summer recess, dysfunction reigned in Congress.

House Republican leaders called off a vote Thursday on their $659 million emergency response to the border influx from Central America overwhelming immigration resources, unable to agree among themselves about what to do.

That sparked a revolt in their caucus over doing nothing, which forced GOP leaders to delay the start of August break to discuss the matter further on Friday morning.

And in the Senate, a $2.7 billion Democratic plan to respond to the immigrant surge failed in a procedural vote.

Asked what happens now, Speaker John Boehner said he'd be working with his caucus. Asked if that would go into the night, he responded: "Oh yeah."

The Senate measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance after Republicans opposed the measure because it didn't include any policy changes to make it easier to deport children back to Central America. Two moderate Democrats voted with Republicans to block the bill.

The end result? Politicians eventually go home for five weeks to campaign for the November congressional elections without sending President Barack Obama legislation to address what both parties agree is a humanitarian crisis at the southern border.

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2948116)
Not sure what to think about this other than dysfunctional congress continues.

Border bills stall in House, Senate - CNN.com


Seems to be functioning rather well, considering that it stopped a bad bill from going through.

I'll take the words of the White House press secretary "... and provide temporary relief from deportation for people who are low priorities for removal"

a) I want no such relief & would back no bill that provides such a thing
b) There should be no such thing as an illegal that is a "low priority for removal"

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 07:43 AM

So, fake crisis, then. As I suspected.

I also love how Boehner recommends (elsewhere) that Obama use an executive order to fix the problem. Which, I'm sure, the GOP would never use in attacks against Obama....

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948142)
So, fake crisis, then. As I suspected.


Depends upon how you want to define it I suppose. I mean, there's no shortage of people all upset about it. Not sure that 180 degree solutions necessarily eliminate the possibility that a "crisis" exists.

I'm in the camp that would gladly support funding to put 'em on the right side of the border but I'm not really inclined to approve a dime for anything else. There's not a shortage of people who are 180 of that.

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948150)
Depends upon how you want to define it I suppose.


Oh, absolutely.

Quote:

I mean, there's no shortage of people all upset about it.

Yes, and this group neatly contains a bunch of GOP operatives looking to create an issue for fundraising and the midterm elections.

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948151)
Yes, and this group neatly contains a bunch of GOP operatives looking to create an issue for fundraising and the midterm elections.


Quote:

Pelosi said the influx of illegal immigrant juveniles is more reason to pass an amnesty bill that Democrats in the Senate like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have said they want to attach to the House's border bill.

"We should move quickly to pass comprehensive immigration reform," Pelosi said.

Pelosi has previously said that she would rather pass comprehensive amnesty legislation than regain her Speakership

When did you turn into such a whiny partisan bitch? Or has it always been this bad & I've just given you too much benefit of the doubt?

JPhillips 08-01-2014 09:54 AM

My understanding is that the law says the children are to be granted hearings. If that's the law, refusing to grant any money just forces the children to live in squalor. There isn't an option of, "just send them home" given the current law.

ISiddiqui 08-01-2014 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948151)
Yes, and this group neatly contains a bunch of GOP operatives looking to create an issue for fundraising and the midterm elections.


Most definitely.

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2948154)
If that's the law, refusing to grant any money just forces the children to live in squalor.


I hope it's as unattractive as possible frankly.

JediKooter 08-01-2014 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948162)
I hope it's as unattractive as possible frankly.


You keep that up and you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2948167)
You keep that up and you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.


Eh, they don't spend all that well anyway.

JediKooter 08-01-2014 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948172)
Eh, they don't spend all that well anyway.


That's true and they take a lot of wall space.

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948152)
When did you turn into such a whiny partisan bitch? Or has it always been this bad & I've just given you too much benefit of the doubt?


You see this as something other than Pelosi & Reid taking advantage of the GOP-manufactured crisis to advance their own immigration agenda? You getting naive in your old age?

molson 08-01-2014 11:30 AM

I'm kind of confused, don't you guys agree that this isn't a "real crisis" and that we shouldn't help these kids?

Edit: I'm actually confused about the whole insistence that this isn't a "crisis". I feel like it's based on some article that was trying to criticize the Republican's approach here, but I've seen Slate, the ACLU, NYtimes, MSNBC, etc, and even Obama himself all describe the situation here as a "crisis" or some other similar terminology. Is it really controversial that this is a really bad situation (or however you want to phrase that)? It seems the difference of opinion is really what we should do about it, and whose responsibility it is. Fighting over whether to call it a "crisis" or not just seems so distant and oblivious.

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948174)
You see this as something other than Pelosi & Reid taking advantage of the GOP-manufactured crisis to advance their own immigration agenda? You getting naive in your old age?


We've been invaded by thousands of leeches, thanks in no small part to the worthless p.o.s. in the Oval Office and that's somehow a "GOP-manufactured crisis"?

W.T.F. ?

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948176)
We've been invaded by thousands of leeches, thanks in no small part to the worthless p.o.s. in the Oval Office and that's somehow a "GOP-manufactured crisis"?


You take an issue as complex and long-lived as illegal immigration and blanket blame Obama for it? When did you become such a whiny partisan bitch?

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2948175)
I'm kind of confused, don't you guys agree that this isn't a "real crisis" and that we shouldn't help these kids?

Edit: I'm actually confused about the whole insistence that this isn't a "crisis". I feel like it's based on some article that was trying to criticize the Republican's approach here, but I've seen Slate, the ACLU, NYtimes, MSNBC, etc, and even Obama himself all describe the situation here as a "crisis" or some other similar terminology. Is it really controversial that this is a really bad situation (or however you want to phrase that)? It seems the difference of opinion is really what we should do about it, and whose responsibility it is. Fighting over whether to call it a "crisis" or not just seems so distant and oblivious.



Politicians, journalists and activists tend to use hyperbole.

The numbers have increased significantly, sure, and the infrastructure at Justice and Homeland Security to support existing processes for this is clearly not able to scale. But a number of solutions have already been proposed and could (in theory, if there was actual will to do so*) be implemented, ranging from re-prioritizing the cases in the queue for Justice, to supplemental appropriations to Justice and/or DHS to scale existing processes.


*Note: Congress just took off on a 5-week vacation. Would they do that in the face of a real "crisis"? Wait, don't answer that, because that's exactly what they did for the government shutdown and almost did for the default as well.

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948176)
We've been invaded by thousands of leeches, thanks in no small part to the worthless p.o.s. in the Oval Office and that's somehow a "GOP-manufactured crisis"?


We've been "invaded by thousands of leeches" yearly for decades, but somehow it is only called a "crisis" whenever the GOP needs some additional lift for fundraising activities or votes for elections.

I can't believe you of all people can't see the cynicism behind this. Given that it's a Friday I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt but I expect better from you after the weekend.

molson 08-01-2014 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948180)
Politicians, journalists and activists tend to use hyperbole.

The numbers have increased significantly, sure, and the infrastructure at Justice and Homeland Security to support existing processes for this is clearly not able to scale. But a number of solutions have already been proposed and could (in theory, if there was actual will to do so*) be implemented, ranging from re-prioritizing the cases in the queue for Justice, to supplemental appropriations to Justice and/or DHS to scale existing processes.

*Note: Congress just took off on a 5-week vacation. Would they do that in the face of a real "crisis"? Wait, don't answer that, because that's exactly what they did for the government shutdown and almost did for the default as well.


Why are all of those liberal outlets and organizations I mentioned (and the president) describing this situation in such grave terms? What's their agenda?

gstelmack 08-01-2014 11:58 AM

We have had a flood of tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors very recently, with no adults to care for them. That has overwhelmed the infrastructure. I'd say that's a crisis from either side of the aisle.

DaddyTorgo 08-01-2014 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948178)
You take an issue as complex and long-lived as illegal immigration and blanket blame Obama for it? When did you become such a whiny partisan bitch?


I'm going to say "birth."

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2948182)
Why are all of those liberal outlets and organizations I mentioned (and the president) describing this situation in such grave terms? What's their agenda?


Pageviews?

This is not a new phenomena, folks. When one party decides to make a stink about something to push forward their legislative agenda, the other party tends (OK, almost always) seeks to use the same topic to push their own counter legislative agenda. It is, frankly, the exception when this doesn't happen.

The various media outlets have no choice but to cover these situations because people want to read/watch about the fight and the media outlets have to cater to their audience. And media outlets who are catering to a particular viewpoint (so, all of them) have the additional responsibility/desire to provide additional fuel for the fire.

Is it Cynicism-Free Friday around here or something?

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2948183)
We have had a flood of tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors very recently, with no adults to care for them. That has overwhelmed the infrastructure. I'd say that's a crisis from either side of the aisle.


At the risk of minimizing the actual suffering going on, this is a relatively simple supply and demand issue. It would be a crisis if we didn't know how to increase supply, but we do. Our politicians just can't get their act together to do it. If there's a crisis here, it's that. But it's not, because that just describes the day-to-day workings of our federal legislature these days.

So, yeah, Boehner's right. Obama should just do it by executive order and let the GOP complain. But then midterm elections, etc....

Yay.

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948178)
You take an issue as complex and long-lived as illegal immigration and blanket blame Obama for it? When did you become such a whiny partisan bitch?


He's merely a proxy for those who have pissed away the future (and the present) of the nation by putting him in office in the first place.

Even claims of the issue being "complex" are largely a straw man. If you're a sovereign nation, you defend your borders. Period. End of discussion.

flere-imsaho 08-01-2014 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2948189)
He's merely a proxy for those who have pissed away the future (and the present) of the nation by putting him in office in the first place.


Well, at least that's more consistent with your usual vitriol and spite. Also, your tears remain delicious.

Quote:

Even claims of the issue being "complex" are largely a straw man. If you're a sovereign nation, you defend your borders. Period. End of discussion.

Though historically the concept is not especially old (illegal/legal immigration, as opposed to the more usual definition of "defending your borders").

molson 08-01-2014 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2948186)

Is it Cynicism-Free Friday around here or something?


Take the politics out of it for a minute. Don't you think the issue with the unattended migrant children is a pretty huge deal? Or somewhere between that and crisis? It does sound like you're minimizing the situation for your own political reasons. Even Obama seems to be hugely concerned with this and he's certainly not motivated by page views. It's just a weird tone. And again, you're sparring with JIMGA here but I think you guys are on the same page that this situation is not a crisis (he just thinks its actually a good thing that children are living like this.)

Edit: It's just a little confusing - I'm used to Democrats blaming Republicans for the immigration issues (and vice versa), but not anyone just claiming that the issue is not a crisis. Is that the new strategy? It is consistent with the blue states' governors refusing to help and house any of these children. If it's not a crisis or a big problem, why should they get involved?

JonInMiddleGA 08-01-2014 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2948196)
And again, you're sparring with JIMGA here but I think you guys are on the same page that this situation is not a crisis (he just thinks its actually a good thing that children are living like this.).


Actually I don't have a problem with the word "crisis" being invoked. (And haven't figured out any reason flere seems to be except to attempt to somehow paint that as being a GOP-only position)

As I mentioned, the difference seems to in what constitutes the "crisis".


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.