Posted on 04/07/2006 2:46:47 AM PDT by djf
By growin up I mean let us have a real debate on President Bush - what is thinking about concerning immigration and the border? Why won't he use the veto pen? Why does he continue to stump for the likes of a Spector but is not there for K Harris? According to your post, he does not think or is too lazy to think. That is the same BS put forth by Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, Katie Coric, Mo Dowd, et al. Come up with something new, some original thought. In other words, grow up!
How does this bitch session make us a nation of weenies?
Most of the laws you described are pretty much just sources of revenue for the goobermint. If they wanted us to stay safe with seat belts etc then there wouldn't be a car made that would go over the speed limit and all would be made of nerf materials so insurance wouldn't be needed per se.....
All about the dollar.....but your analogy is dead on about the wandering border crossings IMHO.
Mr. Bush simply does not like to think.
“President Bush showed little interest in policy discussions in his first two years in the White House, leading Cabinet meetings ‘like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people,’ former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill says in an upcoming book on the Bush White House … Bush was so inscrutable that administration officials had to devise White House policy on ‘little more than hunches about what the president might think.’”
This is why Bush doesn't want to fire anybody: He is reluctant to let anybody go who has been intimately exposed to his vacuity. He can count on his current minions to keep up the charade. But, if he fires them, they might, like O'Neill, reveal to the world what a zero the President is.
For example, to avoid the risk of being drafted and sent to Vietnam, he was handed a coveted Air National Guard gig. You might think that being given the ultimate toy, a supersonic fighter jet, would have held his attention. But Bush eventually just stopped showing up.
Still, despite the sizable chip on his shoulder George W. has carried over his inadequacy relative to Poppy Bush, the two men have had an ultimately positive dynastic relationship.
In my previous post, I provided that amount of info to let you know this was the article your link took me to. It was not just one sentence, it was the entire article. Read like it was written by Mary Mapes and Mo Dowd. Probably two of your favorites. Grow up.
Late life crisis. Alky-no doubt.
Join AA. Get into a rehab center.
And you are qualified to make this judgement...how? Just what is it that has you so threatened that you chose to post accusations such as these, CBart? Are you perhaps projecting?
Well, this thread has little or nothing to do with drinking. And it says nothing about Bush in particular, whether I agree with him or not is not the point I am trying to make here.
It is the law. The opression. The ten thousand (actually, probably more) rules and regulations and guidelines that must be followed in every detail. Down to the last IF, AND, or BUT.
We strive to be patriotic, to be good citizens. We strive to live in our communities in our own way and helping our neighbors.
And unless we are DEAD CENTER, we face all sorts of grief.
Meanwhile, Jose marches on, facing NO CRIMINAL PENALTIES WHATEVER!
A hard working person can't smoke it in the privacy of their home.
The police kick the door down, shoot the dog and confiscate the house.
bttt
So your point seems to be: ah, the life of an illegal. If only we were all so fortunate...
What are you smoking?
The reason we have seatbelt laws is not only because of successful lobbying for them, but because they make sense. No one chooses to buckle up or not in a vacuum. When your melon cracks open all over the street because you're too stupid to wear a simple device that statistically speaking will lessen or prevent injuries in the event of an accident, someone has to scrape your brains off the street. EMTs, doctors and nurses and ridiculously expensive emergency room space have to be devoted to tend to your injuries.
Also, you said that 'if we're lucky' the illegal crossing the border isn't a terrorist in disguise. 'If we're lucky' suggests that the better odds are that the person is a terrorist, and we get lucky if the person actuall isn't. I'm sorry...we may have a serious problem on our hands with illegal immigration, but the reality is not that greater than half of them are terrorists as your statement would require.
Your whole screed is pretty absurd. Maybe you should sleep this day off.
That's an easy call. Projection.
The pattern is so common as to be a stereotype.
Lots of older people suffer from these symptoms.
All the signs are there.
Draw your own conclusions...you seem to have done that already.
Join AA. Get into a rehab center."
Nice input. Or rather output. From your pie-hole.
Talk about someone getting into a "rehab center." Run, don't walk.
What state do you live in?
If I recall correctly random road blocks are illegal where I live (Oregon). I've never seen one here. I think I remember one in Indiana or Georgia a long time ago when I first learned to drive, however.
I live in VA. Random roadblocks were deemed legal by the US Supreme Court as long as served the lofty and "for the children" purpose of stopping "drunk drivers". The fact that I only encounter roadblocks after the first of the month must be just sheer coincidence. The studies that show roadblocks bag a negligible number of DD's are ignored since the real goal is the harassment of people who had one drink or haven't paid one of the fees (I don't disagree with mandatory safety checks but there are state and county fees that are strictly for revenue).
You should check out my rural area. Men around here make about $10/hour legally, then pay taxes, fees, etc. Illegals also make $10 / hour but it is tax free and they don't pay any fees. Tell me, oh wise newbie, who is better off?
I suspect what the US Supreme Court ruled was that they were legal if the state constitution allows it. Some state constitutions have broader protections for certain rights, such as free speech, than the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that's why road blocks are legal in some states and not in others.
Are you advocating this as a solution?
You're probably right. I believe they only ruled that the 4th amendment doesn't protect you from roadblocks as long as those roadblocks served some lofty purpose. States can certainly have stronger protection. The thing I don't like is that my travel through other states subjects me to the lowest standards of S&S protection since the USSC won't step up to the plate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.