And our political leaders are much more accessible.

Ron,

People (Republicans and Democrats) don't necessarily trust huge companies, but tolerate them because they make money, and for a small share in that corporation, we can make money with it.

The Government tends to take money away. Most people don't like working 40+ hours a week, just to have someone take around 10% of your earnings.

People generally want ourselves taken care of, before we take care of others.

Now before people get on their high horse and tell me I'm an uncompasionate fool, No where did I mention that it is moral or ethical, but it's just the way most people think.

Hey Ron - don't be fooled by the Big White Elephant that hasn't proved yet in trials that it can do the job it was hyped to do. So far the Big White Elephant has sucked up no oil and may never be used due to it's poor design. Most likely it's back to the drawing boards for the Big White Elephant. It's a nice concept but it was put together way too hastily. A real shame that this kind of ship wasn't already in BP Oil's inventory and had the proper R&D and testing done before the spill so it would work as advertised.

Cult, that's where the Democrats have done a poor job by playing on Republican turf on this issue. They virtually never stand firmly against the attacks to make the point that the taxes we pay provide workplace protection, safe food, schools, roads, fire and police. We like our national parks, the overtime pay we get for long hours (if we're hourly) and the thought that we're getting on a plane that's been proven safe through mandatory certification. The hawks and eagles that fly so majestically are increasing through a government ban on DDT, and we're pretty sure the doctor is giving us medicine that's more than sugar pills and alchol in a medicine bottle. We all hate the government...until it stops doing something we value.

People need to get off of these high horse notions that it is ONLY REPUBLICANS that take money from corporations.

I think Republicans have allowed the Democrat party to deamonize and plant that seed into the minds of Americans.

I'll say it again: A POLITICIAN IS A POLITICIAN....They all need paper (money) to campaign and unfortunately NO ONE gets anything for free. If you think ANY POLITICIAN do not owe someone something for donations, then you are a fool.

And Ron you say you trust the Government???? That is another story.

"I don’t know the names of the CEO’s of the Fortune 500, but I do know the names of our elected officials."

If you would like know the names of the people running the country you best get the names of those CEO's my friend, the "elected officials" you mentioned work for them not you and I, the sooner people realize that the better, actually I think most people do realize that they have no representation in D.C. they just have a hard time dealing with the fact that they are truly are powerless and their vote means nothing, until the people admit they have been duped by the whole Dem/Repub farce and speak as one nothing will change, and it will not be pleasant or easy because the people running the show currently like it that way and they will protect their empire most vigorously, and since they have 90% of the wealth and control the military they represent a very formidable adversary for the citizens of our country, anybody that thinks they are somehow immune best take a good look around, the power brokers of this country will not stop until they have it all and our country is nothing more than a handful of haves with the masses the have nots. So when you go do your patriotic duty and cast your vote just remember it means nothing.

w Bush: I hope I never become as cynical as you.

ITM,

You and I have debated this point before and I thought we had come to an agreement. Yes, BOTH sides are in the pockets of big business. The problem you have is not with the public or with the MSM. Your problem is that, despite the fact that ALL politicians are in their pockets, it is (more often than not) the GOP members that vote with big business interests in a very public and vocal way. If the public perceives that the GOP is more in the pocket of these special interests, maybe its because the GOP so consistently takes their side on just about every issue that really matters.

If the Democrats were also voting for big business interests the way the GOP does, you would not see such a slant in that coverage or perception.

Now, as for trusting the government? Well, I tend to put a lot more trust in government when the Democrats are in power since we DO actually fund things and TRY to do the right thing. When the GOP is in power, they spend their time trying to DISMANTLE and SHRINK government to the point where it can no longer function. THAT government I do NOT trust. One that is fully funded, staffed, and has clear and necessary regulations and guidelines to follow? Yeah, I will get on a plane, drink the water, eat the food, etc. Without the staffing and funding and regulations needed to protect us ALL, I would not leave the house (and even THAT would not save me from poisoned air and water if the GOP had their way).

Disgusted-in Pa: Very well said. You hit the nail on the head. Excellent.

John B, Des Moines IA. You, Jody and I see the world through midwestern eyes. I sure enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks Ron, I usually read your post first...and not just because it's usually first!! There's always something thought provoking in there.

It too bad that actually expecting the Federal government to enforce existing immigration laws is considered "racist".

As for "who do you trust", according to Rasmussen polling, the voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on 9 of the 10 key issues they track (the tenth is close).

I'm sure many will say "Rasmussen is right wing", but actually they showed Democrats winning in 2006 and 2008, and they were the most accurate pollster in 2008 - by far.

If you want to keep fooling yourself, keep denying reality.

Actually, if the Republicans do take over Congress this year, it may be a good thing, since the last time this happened - 1994, it resulted in Bill Clinton actually working with the Republicans, and the result was that much was accomplished, and we had several years of budget surpluses.

It will mean that Obama will have to abandon his far-left agenda and bring some reason back into Washington, which should be a good thing.

The 2012 Senate elections should be interesting. 22 Democratic Senate seats will be up for re-election, while only 11 Republican seats will have to be defended.

Since the Republicans could pick up as many as 10 Senate seats in the 2010 elections, it could be worry time for Obama.

Obama rejected outsiders help. Obama wants to overwhelm the system so he can bring in his socialist agenda. Why else would he have overspent? He uses the regular, everyday people to shout out his agenda. What will they get when it all comes to pass? He has sold out his brothers in the gulf states for power.

Roy,it's easy to trust Republicans more than Democrats.All you have to do is forget the years 2000-2008 happened.

When exactly did our government ask other countries for help? Is the Jones act suspended yet? If you offer that false claim, you put everything else after it in question to me. Last I knew, ships from other countries were still waiting through the red tape. You know....that red tape the candidate obama claimed he would get rid of?

MAW and Dan,

Please get your facts together before you parrot things that have already been debunked by actual NEWS organizations and not the propaganda arm of the GOP. The Jones act ONLY applies to commerce that has both an origin and a destination a US port. The act also ONLY applies to vessels operating withing the 3 mile coastal limit.

There are (at last OFFICIAL US COUNT) 24 foreign vessels from 9 countries operating at the site. The Coast Guard has also stated that it is their belief that the Jones Act does not apply and would not require a waiver for them to operate. Since 24 are already there, I would say they know what they are talking about. In addition, the Coast Guard announced that they had arranged for expedited waivers to be granted in the event it was determined that a Jones Act waiver WAS required.

See what happens when you take your head out of the sand long enough to actually absorb FACTS and not FICTION? Any questions?

I wonder why MSNBC chooses Chuck Todd to be in charge of anything.

No wonder so many newsvine posters speak in black and white terms of political parties.

The first words out of Chuck Todd's mouth is that the immigration debate benefits the Republicans.

That implies that all Demorats believe in amnesty and Republicans do not.

Considering THE FACT that 60% of the American population wants illegal aliens deported, this issue IS NOT Republican vs. Democrat.

The issue is respect for the law or not. It is that simple to Americans.

Why is it that MSNBC and our politicians can not understand that simple fact?

I wonder why conservatives trust huge companies. Representative Joe Barton, Governor Bobby Jindal and about half the Republicans in Congress get big bucks from big business. It must be for the money. I would rather believe it’s for the money than believe they don’t care about America’s environment.

Ron, from what I have seen since the spill started, Bobby Jindal has shown his concern for the environment more than any other Federal official. He wanted to build leveys & berms to prevent the oil from reaching wetland ecosystems. The feds have fought with him every step of the way.

BTW, this is about immigration, Look at the picture above. If you are going to demonstrate against the AZSB1070 bill, can you at least have your protest signs in ENGLISH? I'm sure everyone that this individual encounters has to cater to this individual's lack of will to learn the language of the country whos policy he is protesting.

Is the Venezuelan man by any chance made of straw?

Nicely written CFU, fiction writer's are on the decline, but when one lives a fictional life, such as your own, it's second nature!

Damn Chuckie... That was a really nice story. I sure hope you got to marry his beautiful daughter, learned how to spin straw into gold, and sailed off into the sunset and lived happily ever after before you woke up and came back to reality.

John B - you are cracking me up!

The Problem with your little story is that you, Up-Chuck, are not out doing his lawn maintenance, cleaning his pool, doing his laundry and taking care of his kids, or all of the other work he does not want to do...all for 1/4 of the legal minimum wage and living in the little rundown shack at the edge of his property.

Get Real UpChuck, and quit throwing your racist garbage all over where we have to pick it up and dispose of it properly!!

Also, 3 of my friends have criminal records. Fortunately, the homeowner doesn't know this. He'll probably find out when it's too late and something happens, but hey, that's the way it goes.

Cute analogy, but it doesn't hold up. It doesn't account for one of the biggest reasons illegals continue to flood the country, which is because employers continue to depend on the cheap labor. You can sit and blame the individuals who enter our country as much as you want, but until some of the internal problems are solved, they are going to keep coming in droves. It's good old supply and demand: as long businesses continue to demand the cheap labor, there will be a steady supply. Stiff penalties should be imposed on companies who hire (and, by the way, abuse) illiegal immigrants. While we're at it we should go after landlords who rent to them.

As far as the immigrants go, they're just doing what my ancestors and yours did - coming to America in search of a better life.

B. Honest-No! We told him that we will clean his pool, mow his lawn etc...He mumbled some crap about how "that still doesn't make it right that you broke into my home-it's illegal"....and he said he has a "couple other people who are LEGALLY renting a couple rooms upstairs" and that they will do the work. We just scoffed at him and called him a racist. He shut up.

If I scoff at YOU and call YOU a racist, will YOU shut up Chuckie?

oh, my side is splitting. you are so funny. really funny. super funny. i can't stop from laughing. who says rightwing nutjobs are not funny. you are the best fu charley. i like the part where you said that this guys trailer home is nicer than your trailer home. also, how your criminal friends were hanging out in his place.

ps dont quit your day job. do you even have a day job?

UpChuck, I have to laugh every time you post, you are Almost as clueless as Juven!!

The mayor came and visited us last week. He said "if I can fix it so you guys can stay in the house...will you vote for me next time?" We said "Hell yeah."

Look. The point is. The Venezuelan guy is just making too much money. He doesn't need all that damn money for himself. The greedy bastard. It's selfish for him to not help us out, even if we did break in. In fact, a lot of you on here obviously own computers so you must be making some cash too. How about you all send me and my friends some of your money so we can be guaranteed a good life. You know, "redistribute the fairness" as one of you put it a while back. "Spread the wealth around" as our (not a socialist at all) president said. Can I give you my address?

fu charley, your rant is moving into a multitude of categories. please put your tinfoil hat back on. first you are talking about immigration. then you moved to the mayor and elections. then you moved to socialism and redistribution of wealth. please take your zoloft and finish your morning jack daniels. your comprehension of all things is underwhelming. just beacause your boyfriend todd has not called you back does not mean you should displace your anger on everyone else.

CU:

Don't argue with those damn idiots. You made an analogy that they just do not want to accept because it was written by a Republican.

If a Democrat had written the same thing; it would be graciously observed as the best articulated and substantuated piece of literature that has ever been presented on a blog because all Democrats are educated and read 20 books per week, drink Starbucks latte's, don't curse, and use correct English proficiently.

ITM,

Are you saying that being educated, literate, and a consumer of capitalist goods is a bad thing? You ARE a Republican right? I am struggling to see where anything you seem to be deriding is actually a bad thing?

Is this like we don't ever want to elect an "ivory tower elitist" to the Presidency? We would rather elect an illiterate and uneducated person that would never think of patronizing a sparkling example of American capitalism such as Starbucks? When did you turn on America ITM? I would have sworn you loved America.

Troubling times when the GOP and the Tea Party crown cannot keep their positions and talking points straight. Who am I supposed to be against again? Quick, someone turn on Beck so I can read the chalkboard and get caught back up for the day's debates...

cu

bRAVO MY FRIEND BRAVO! tHIS IS THE PERFECT ANALOGY OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON IN aMERICA! Have you noticed how it has gotten to the point that almost everything is written in English and Spanish?

And no libs (before you heads blow up) Im not racist..... If a person wants to come to this country Im way ok with that.... I just ask that they do it legally and they conform to our rules. Why should I have to learn spanish (and yes this happens even up here in North Dakota) just to ask someone a question? Last time I checked English is Americas language.

Its a sad commentary that this country has gotten to the point that if you want people who are here illegally out of your country and if a person (me -- no straw man) wants it so that people who imigrate here to actually conform to our culture -- were now called racist....

Does that mean that France is full of racists because they make imigrants know how to speak French? Or is Mexico racist because they have tougher immigration laws than we do? (Yes I realize according to the liberals only white men can possibly be racist.)

I don't think the issue is whether illegal immigration should be tolerated - obviously, illegal is illegal. I shudder to read what is happening in Mexico with the drug gangs, and what the Arizonians have had to put up with human smugglers in their neighborhoods.

BUT. The President is absolutely right this is a bad law. It basically says, if the police suspect you might be illegal, they must take you to jail, where you sit until the Federal Immigration service does a back ground check. This is flat out unconstitutional, and I can't believe the Tea Partiers with their "Don't Tread on Me" rhetoric aren't up in arms about it. We have plenty of illegal Irish immigrants here, what if the police were rounding up red-heads?

CU Farley,

Nice analogy, I do have just one question----Do you expect this current lot of Republicans do anything with illegal immigration when they did nothing about it when they were in controll of the government?

Amy have you bothered to read the bill or are you just going by what MSNBC and the President are telling you what it says?

The President doesnt even get what it actually says.

It is saying that if you are stopped by a police officer and they have a reason to believe that you are here illegally it is your responsibility to prove that you are here legally. Seems fair to me?

Im pretty sure immigrants are required to have their papers on them at all times anyways.

And before the libs start screaming about racial profilin...think about this.... if TSA was allowed to racially profile things like the fruit a kaboom bomber (Christmas day attempted bombing) wouldnt happen. Most terrorists are (unfortunately) of Muslim descent. Just the same the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are from Central America -- and the majority of them are from Mexico. Thats not racism....thats just using common information and using it to stop crimes from happening before they actually happen.

May a few cases happen where the police accidentally hold a legal immigrant (because he does not have his papers on him like he should or something along those lines)? Sure.... but to be fair.... Im now grouped into the racist group just because Im white and believe that the only people that should be here are those that are here legally.

So Larry,

By your twisted logic, we should be stopping and questioning anyone of hispanic or muslim descent OR if they appear to be of either descent? As such, what happens when Al Qaeda simply starts recruiting old white men or women to be their operatives? Can we then detain YOU because you are Caucasian and fit the "profile"?

whatever happened to "presumed innocence"? Don't Americans have RIGHTS?

I guess not so much in the Glenda Becky "New World Order"?

wHY DONT WE JUST HAVE OPEN BORDERS? lET ANYONE come here? I mean seriously..... what do you people want?

The sad thing is the Democratic party and the unioons are just using you sad liberals to get all these criminals amnesty so that they will vote for them.....

To be honest I hail the Minutemen down there on the border....the sad thing is they are doing the work that the Fed. govt (not just Obama-- but he has ratched this up to a new level) wont do because they are so afraid of pissing the latino voters off.

Well guess what? Im sorry if someones brother (who is here illegally) gets deported (or under what I want to happen ) thrown in jail for a couple years then deported but thats not my problem. The person here illegally is a criminal and deserves to be treated as one.

CU, you can argue your strawman all you want but he's still a strawman. You've deliberately misstated the position of the Democratic party and immigrant advocates in order to create an argument that you find satisfying.

Larry, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a black African. Al Qaeda is currently most active in Malaysia. Your universe of people who should be considered guilty until proven innocent seems to consist mainly of Larry from North Dakota.

Both of you and ITM as well are normally squawking about how the Democratic party is destroying the Constitution, but you're willing to make exceptions here because you're scared of the people who don't look like you.

I might also add that Conservatives are constantly whining about the "situational ethics" of Liberals, but this is an area where EVERYTHING seems to depend on who you are and your level of fear.

Have you figured out yet Larry where we are going to 'jail' all of these criminals?

You never answered the question...

Blackmen get stopped all of the time for NOTHING but being black so it is hard to have any sympathy in regards to the stops.

I get stopped and you know it is a BS stop because the first thing that comes out of his mouth is what are you doing over here. This is before asking for license and insurance.

"Well guess what? Im sorry if someones brother (who is here illegally) gets deported (or under what I want to happen ) thrown in jail for a couple years then deported but thats not my problem. The person here illegally is a criminal and deserves to be treated as one."

Is that how we're going to start treating ALL misdemeanors? Because being in the country without proper documentation is a misdemeanor. Let's alter your thought a bit and see how that plays.

"Well guess what? Im sorry if someones brother who runs a stop sign or jaywalks or litters gets thrown in jail for a couple years then deported but thats not my problem. The person is a criminal and deserves to be treated as one."

Larry,

I doubt seriously you will get much of an argument (at least not from me) about illegal immigration being illegal. While I can accept that something DOES need to be done to address the issue of those already here, sealing the border is only ONE aspect of the larger problem. I know you are already aware of the incentives that are in place by the employers looking for cheap labor.

What I do not understand is why you insist on focusing ONLY on that ONE aspect of the overall problem. If you feel that you have to demonize people that are here illegally, that is between you and your presumed God. If you want to solve this problem; however, get off your high moral horse and address ALL the aspects and root causes of the problem or, again, I need to ask you to STFU and get the hell out of the way of those that ARE willing and ABLE to address the ENTIRE issue and not only the parts your myopic view of the world mandates your brain to pursue.

"I get stopped and you know it is a BS stop because the first thing that comes out of his mouth is what are you doing over here. This is before asking for license and insurance."

That makes it OK? You don't feel sympathy because you get mistreated. Wouldn't it be better to work toward a society where you don't get mistreated?

Larry, you state the Democrats and unions are using people but the Republicans are doing the very same thing.

How can anyone trust the current lot of Republicans to do anything. This group by and large are the very same group that brought us uncontrolled spending and no action on illegal immigration, what has changed with them---other than being out of power----nothing!

This problem is shared by both parties and as soon as we all realize that neither party is really going to do anything about it.

We the people of this country must demand a vote for term limits period. That is the only way out of this current problem with both parties and not wanting to do anything collectively together.

At this point in time Congress who ever controlls it does nothing for this country It is a broke institution and only harms this country as logn as it remains broken.

John B.,

Who in the hell do you think I'm scared of? I have lived amongst Mexicans (some illegal) all of my life so I'm not scared of a Mexicans.

You live in Iowa where there is a population of about 99% white. What do you know about living in a border state? It is easy to sit up there and look down people in this part of the country because you don't know what is really going on.

Terry from one disabled vet to another I actually voted for your post. I can go on a long rant about the Republicans too..... but Ill sum it up in a few words:

George Bush while WAY more conservative then Barack Obama, is a progressive as well. Ive stated on this board a couple times my disdain for the fact that he pushed the original Stimulus Bill.

My problem is the fact that the liberals continually live in the past (its all Bush's fault). Well some things may be his fault but the fact is the liberals are continuing to weaken this proud contry

A state is not a sovereign nation, so a police officer does not have the right to deport you, its that simple. The truth is Arizona (the state I was born and raised in) has overstepped its bounds. The real question is why did they do it this way. They did this in the most disruptive and ineffective way possible. Gov. Brewer knows this is outside of her lane but did it even though there are things in her lane she could do to an even better result. I agree with the fact the federal side needs to do a better job at border control but there is another side to the blame game. Why doesn't Arizona take responsibility for the businesses that profit off of illegal immigrants within its state. That is a solution that would be more effective and not contrary to the constitution which is clear on the states not being responsible for an individuals citizenship. Ask yourself this, if this is not political and the Gov. truly wants to fix this issue why isn't she doing both of the above ideas? It would look a lot less suspitious if Arizona was attacking both sides of this issue and not just the defenseless one. Remember both being and illegal immigrant and hiring an illegal immigrant are crimes and the only way you can be serious about fixing this problem is to prosecute both.

ITM,

What is it that is "really going on" over there in Texas? Is there something sinister brewing just under the surface lurking in the shadows to steal your business and your family's livelihood? I am sure YOU do not employ any of those "dirty" illegals in YOUR restaurant/businesses right? Every one of your employees has passed muster with the Feds and has proven they are legally able to work here? You undoubtedly pay them rather well since they ARE legal residents or citizens right?

Ok, so maybe the chain on the other side of town is running into some tough waters and is looking to pinch a few pennies by hiring cheaper labor. You know as well as I do that you have to pay a LOT more for a gringo to bus tables or wash dishes than the illegal only trying to feed his family right?

I am not saying you are afraid of anything and I am not accusing YOU of anything one way or the other. My point is only that this issue is way bigger than ANY of our own individual issues, perspectives, or political beliefs. This is why nobody has had the wherewithal to tackle the issue. McCain and Kennedy made a valiant effort, but the political realities made it such that McCain had to choose between what is right for the country he supposedly loves so much, or getting re-elected. Well, we know which way he chose to tack as soon as he voted against HIS OWN BILL!

Now, when you have hypocrisy like that, who needs an opposition party or even a platform to run on? All I need is file footage of the Republican's own words, statements, positions, and most importantly, VOTES on the key issues. Who voted to block unemployment? Who voted to weaken and block Wall Street Reform? Who blocked the efforts to remove the $75 Million liability cap? Who fought tooth and nail against providing health insurance to the destitute? Who champions tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations while American children go hungry in the streets? We all know where each party falls on these issues for the most part. All that remains is for the American public to choose whose side they are on and want fighting for THEM. It should be pretty clear to anyone willing to shake off the echo chamber influences and simply open their eyes to see what the GOP stands for and what their plan for America is.

As for me, I cannot wait to make my voice heard in November and I hope that the rest of those Americans that are sick to death of the way the media and the entire political process has been corrupted by punditry and big money interests join me at the polls and make the intelligent choices that need to be made at the polls this November.

As I travel from San Diego to Lake Havasu Az. I am compelled to "show my papers" no less than two times at federal immigration check points which are miles away from the border. There is one just outside of San Diego, and one just north of Glamis. Should I chose to go through Yuma, there is one near Lake Martinez.

At these check points I must submit to questioning, am I a citizen, is everyone in the car a citizen, and I must specify where I am headed. At the same time a dog is taken around my car sniffing for drugs, and other contraband.

So let's get past the Az. is racist with tSB 1070. The federal government compels me to no only to "submit my papers" by conducting an interrogation at all checkpoints, it also forces a putative search. This is done to every single car that travels in the So. West desert, every day. And again, these checkpoints are miles away from the border.

So the federal government is engaging in activity that goes far beyond what Az. seeks to do - which is to inquire as to citizenship in limited circumstances. And really, each and every time anyone is pulled over for even a traffic stop the very first thing asked for is license and registration. What happens out here is the illegals just dont' get tickets, whereas citizens do. That is untenable on a variety of levels. The illegals must be removed from the roadways. This is a public safety issue - they have no licenses, no insurance, and have exhibited a total disregard for our laws.

"And before the libs start screaming about racial profilin...think about this.... if TSA was allowed to racially profile things like the fruit a kaboom bomber (Christmas day attempted bombing) wouldnt happen. Most terrorists are (unfortunately) of Muslim descent."

I just want you to know Muslim is not a race. There are Muslims of ever race and color, so how do you "racial profile" them if they don't all look the same? That is why you can not put that logic into practice. We assume all people of middle-eastern decent are Muslims but they aren't. Just like all white people aren't Catholic or all black people aren't Baptist or all indian folks aren't Hindu. It is the line of thinking above that leads reasonable people to believe folks who talk like this are racists.

P.S. I am and was raised a Christian.

Larry,

I think the blaming part has some truth to the matter of what ailes this country. I don't believe one group weakens this country more than the other, I do believe that our political system has brought us to a point where the country is at its own throat.

We can go back several administrations and members of congress belittling each other and that has found its way down to the everyday citizen in part by a 24 hours news cycle.

I still can not trust this current lot of Republicans to do anything as they have not shown me anything different from their past control of Congress.

I do believe that there is more to the problem other than border control that is not being addressed and that being-----employers employing illegals. Until we address that issue as well, there will be no border control no matter how many people you put in jail.

Here in Iowa, we deal with illegals and employers who hire them. We also deal with a drug problem from the cartels because of our situation with the interstate system that runs from coast to coast and from the southern border to the northern border of this country.

Border control is only one part of the problem and I like many others believe we need to deal with the whole problem not just part of it.

Let's face it people who employ illegals to be their gardener, grounds keeper, maid, nanny, and low wage worker in factories or renderies are a major problem with this issue that needs to be dealt with, until then the illegal will continue to come.

ITM, I worked 3 summers in the maintenance dept of a packinghouse. Don't presume to think I know nothing of Hispanics. Besides, geography doesn't disqualify anyone from a national debate.

CU, are you willing to do the jobs those folks do? Are you willing to ask why Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to millions of ILLEGAL aliens which made the problem worse rather than better? CU, are you willing to pay $10 for a head of iceburg lettuce or a small basket of strawberries because they were picked by Americans paid a decent living wage (if those Americans would even do the job in the first place)? If your answer is yes to all these questions you have a legitimate gripe, if not you have no justifiable complaint. Oh, and are you willing to let fellow human beings die because some doctors aren't following their hypocratic oath and refuse to treat someone because he is illegal or has no insurance?

You all have missed the real point of Chuck U Farley's post: he's totally anti-private property! He thinks that he's entitled to whatever he wants whenever he wants it, and since his neighbor is better off, he can just squat on his property. Do your Republican buddies know about this? Do they still let you play in their treehouse? (Right, I forgot, you have your new house now.) Clearly he does not respect private property. Chuck, just as an expiriment, why don't you head on down to Wal-Mart, and 'liberate' some of their property. I'm sure that once you explain that you are making a reasonable statement about what's legal and illegal, and how, since they make more money than you, and are one of the biggest employers of illegal immigrants, and are therefore also pro-illegal, they won't prosecute you.

BTW, If you want to post your home address, I'm sure someone would come to your neighbor's house to debate this with you. Please feel free.

Spanky. I remember those check points because I passed through them often. I was never asked to show ID. They just look in the car, look at the people, sometimes ask a question. Those agents knew what they were looking for and what car they needed to search. There are check points entering California to ask IF you have fruit with you because they don't want anyone bringing bug infested fruit to ruin their crops.

Disgruntled:

My brothers run the business because I live in the Ft Hood area. I check on the one in San Antonio from time to time but I can tell you, there are no illegal's working at any of the 3 locations. We have hispanic employees but non are illegal. My father would not go for that.

Now, when you have hypocrisy like that, who needs an opposition party or even a platform to run on? All I need is file footage of the Republican's own words, statements, positions, and most importantly, VOTES on the key issues. Who voted to block unemployment? Who voted to weaken and block Wall Street Reform? Who blocked the efforts to remove the $75 Million liability cap? Who fought tooth and nail against providing health insurance to the destitute? Who champions tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations while American children go hungry in the streets? We all know where each party falls on these issues for the most part. All that remains is for the American public to choose whose side they are on and want fighting for THEM. It should be pretty clear to anyone willing to shake off the echo chamber influences and simply open their eyes to see what the GOP stands for and what their plan for America is.

What does this have to with illegal immigration? Republicans are in the minority but instead of whining like the Democrats did, they just vote NO and call it a day. There is no need to whine and cry everyday, just vote no and move on to the next topic.

This is politics. I just accept it for what it is.

So the only thing the minority party is responsible for is voting no and moving on? Working for the betterment of our country is out of bounds, regardless of the legislation and consequences doing so brings? I actually believe that is the republican's belief on how a minority party should behave...no wonder congress is so ineffective.

ITM,

Shall I now return the favor of trashing your moniker? I thought we had agreed to rise above that. Apparently, your skin is too thin to remember things like that...

Larry, well put regarding, "would France be considered racist because . . . " I have traveled a great deal and when you go to a European country, you do not have to speak for i.e. French or Italian fluently, but they do expect that you "try" and respect their culture . . . and I am only speaking about a short stay whether vacation or business! If America is a "melting pot" then we should have only English spoken so to speak OR every language of every group that immigrated here on the phone menus . . . If you came through Ellis Island and did not speak English, the language you did speak was not welcomed?!! You needed to assimilate and that was all there was to it . . . We are all humans and if you give any one group preferential treatment, they are going to take it and run . . . that is just human nature . . .

Wow, notice how people get so uptight when the truth is told to them in a way that makes them angry?

No problem for the Republicans in the long term on this law as long as they make English the national language-then the hispanics that wouldn't have voted for them won't be able to read the ballot and try to vote the Republicans out that they claim made their lives harder. But I must be a racist because I (a legal citizen) don't want lawbreakers allowed access to the same freedoms I enjoy in our great country. I also want those immigrants to use the same language as I (already a citizen) use. Just as I woundn't expect people in another country to know English if I were traveling. If THAT makes me a racist, then I'm proud to be one. I won't shave my head or wear any silly tatoos, and don't think any particular race should be wiped off the planet, but will hold true to my beliefs that if someone wants to join our country, they should adapt to our way of life. NOT the other way around.

Dan and ELeet,

Frankly, for most other nationals, especially through Europe and large portions of Asia, and Africa English is commonly taught as the Universal Language of Trade and Science. Thus we are able to communicate with these people because they have already learned OUR language. Most people in other countries speak at least two different languages, and in Africa you are almost considered illiterate if you are not literate in AT LEAST four to six languages with English for dessert.

Yes, we do have a National Language, and it was almost German, if you actually study history. Most Europeans that came here already knew some English, German and French along with whatever local languages or dialects they spoke at home. Many of them learned English as a second or third language here, as it was the Proper thing to do, however, there are still, to this day, enclaves of folks who speak German, French, Creole (a French based dialect) Polish and the like, and since, in modern times, immigrants have come here in various Large waves, we get so many that struggle to learn the new language, and it is easier for them to stick to their native languages.

I hear complaints about Spanish, but what about Indonesian, Korean, Viet Namese, Chinese or Japanese, many of these folks are legal citizens, yet retain their native tongues, and for the elderly it is very hard for them to change. They try their best, even the hispanics, to have their children learn the language, just like OUR ancestors did, with the elderly sticking to their native tongues. When I was growing up, all my grandparents on my Mom's side spoke mostly Polish amongst themselves, but made sure that their children learned the very best English. Just like today's immigrants, legal or no, they know that to be fully a part of this society they need to be able to speak the language, and they try, if not to be able to learn themselves, then to make sure that their children do, and realistically, that is as much as you can possibly expect. Odds are, YOUR ancestors, when they came here, did not speak English, and went through the exact same things.

To be complaining about someone's language is an extension of racism, it gets you out of directly putting down that race, but your dislike for them still shows through!

CU Farley

Oh my goodness. I can't imagine that your story is really true but I hope you opened some eyes!

B Honest-I don't think I tried to hide the fact that I don't like people in this country that don't speak English. Be it Mexicans, chinese, or even just the Japanese tourists that ride out to the Arizona memorial with smiles on their faces as they chat amongst themselves in their native tongue. If that makes me racist, then I'm fine with that. You're not hurting my feelings by calling me that. And you're incorrect, my ancestors learned the language BEFORE they came to this country. I have no problem with my kids learning a second language, what I have a problem with is pushing 1 for english. Never have we as a country bent so far to put signs in other languages as we have for spanish. So any comparison you have falls well short of what we are doing.

I would like society to be inclusive of everyone regardless of race or religion. I would like society to be kinder to one another and more tolerant of different views. I would like our legislators to work together for the common good of all and not power or the next election. Every person should have the opportunity to succeed, to be educated, to have enough food to eat, and to be healthy. In order to have a successful society, each must be willing to contribute their fair share.

I agree "contribute your fair share" that means that everyoe should be working and not living off the govt ie Welfare.....Ill be happy to contibute but tell me why I should contribute to support people who refuse to work, leach off society, or are in this country illegally

Pat H

for the same reason my tax contributions support your war mongering BS. We don't get to pick where our tax dollars go.

I have said this before. Our budget should be defined more by the buckets of government agencies. If you owe/pay $5K in taxes (random number) - you should be able to send $2K to Education, $1K to Health & Human Services, etc. If the tax payers don't 'earmark it' you bet your sweet butt the whore hounds in Congress will lap it up.

Many Departments need complete overhauls; but no one wants to make the hard choices. Put some pragmatic people in charge and get her done, as it were.

This is not about bipartisanship, or how many Arizonians support the law. It is about whether the law is constitutional. Clearly the Constitution states that immigration is a federal responsibility. I doubt the state argument that the federal government has not done its job is justification for creating an illegal law.

Well, Ron the feds had better get the lawyers on overtime because most states have statues that conform to the federal law, California and Rhode Island as examples. The question is simply one of enforcement. Are states allowed to enforce federal law? I think that passes. Would a state law enforcement officer ignore a kidnapping, or a civil rights violation? Would the federal government claim that these actions are unconstitutional because they are federal law? All Arizona is doing is enforcing a federal law.

Here is the California statute. Is this constitutional?

With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

Now it's pretty obvious that California is not enforcing their own state statute but if they did, simply a policy change, would that suddenly be unconstitutional?

Here is the link to the RI situation.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100707bad_posture_on_amnesty_funny_how_feds_lean_on_ariz_not_ri/

Mixed, to continue our discussion from yesterday:

First polling places have laws about how close non-voters are allowed to be. In respect to that, then the law should be enforced or changed.

On immigration laws, I could agree it would be appropriate for the administration to send help to any/all states that need help with enforcement.

A question for you – How would you propose to pay for the multi-billion dollar cost? Add to that the additional billions required to finish securing the border.

On this topic – It is a constitutional issue about states’ rights on immigration.

Do you only believe in the constitution when it serves you and disagree when it doesn’t? If the constitution is our guiding principle then allow the courts decide. This court leans Right so they will probably side with Arizona, but let them decide.

I'm not an attorney Ron, but I've been listening to a number of experts in constitutional law weighing in on the viability of the Arizona law.

I don't see any sort of consensus that this law is not going to be upheld, largely because the provisions of the law appear to be concurrent with current federal immigration law. For example, CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, certainly no conservative, said last night that the Justice Department lawsuit is no slam-dunk.

Presumably, if necessary, the state of Arizona will take this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm not sure it'll get that far unless the Obama Administration takes it there, with all the risks inherent in such a strategy.

With regard to the "bi-partisanship" angle, that was just a reminder that this is very much a political issue...as well as a legal one.

Ron,

This lawsuit is not black and white. The federal government is going to have to prove (since they're the complainant the burden of proof is on them) that the Arizona law is somehow pre-empting federal law. As far as Arizona is concerned, they are only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law (remember the Arizona law states that officials can only ask for papers if they have detained someone for a separate reason. They can't, as President Obama put it, just pull someone and their kid eating an ice cream cone, off the street and demand papers.) Unfortunately it will most likely lead to racial profiling, and that is what is at the heart of this debate. Is it ethical to racially profile to protect citizens?

Dennis-

The stationing of uniformed thugs outside polling places on election day for the purpose of voter intimidation violates existing federal civil rights law. That is why the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is so interested in the Justice Department's handling of the Philadelphia incident, and is currently holding hearings on the matter.

U.S. border security is a national security issue, and therefore a national defense issue. The first responsibility of the federal government is national defense...thus, it's the first priority as far as funding is concerned.

As to the constitutionality of the Arizona law, now that President Obama and AG Holder have decided to pursue this folly, I'm perfectly happy to allow the courts to settle this matter, one way or the other.

Are you?

Whatever happens, the state of Arizona has made its point...hasn't it?

Ron,

Why are you throwing the word illegal around? What is illegal are all of those people trampling across the border.

This law hasn't even went into effect yet. The Government has to prove it is illegal. So right now you're just blowing smoke.

I am curious, Mixed Bag, if this were the FIRST priority of the government, WHY wasn't it the FIRST thing "W" focused on after 9/11? PS. Didn't the hijackekrs enter from the North Border?

I am relieved to hear you admit that "W" was asleep at the wheel. And for apparently 7 years he COULD have done something; but elected not to. How completely derelict was that? In summary, AZ is attempting to force the government's hand; but apparently couldn't make an issue of it until a Democratic President was elected? That's some piss poor timing, if you ask me. Okay, I am sure the Napolitano-ites will Blame it on Her; but how is that any different? Really?

Mixed, Yes AZ made their point if that was their intent and yes I can easily go along with whatever the court decides – I am not personally invested – I would like it resolved including the entire immigration issue – not like Reagan did by kicking the can down the road. No President since has had the balls to anything about immigration even though they promised to during their campaigns.

Yes this is a national defense issue but will congress add to the deficit or find some other place to take the money from. This is a congressional issue not a Presidential one. The President can order troops to the border but the Congress must fund them – just like any war.

On the first issue I said enforce the law. How much more clear can I be?

I’ve been forthcoming with answers and expressed some give … how about you? You have yet to answer any questions or show any effort toward compromise. All you have done is make statements and ask more questions.

Do you have anything to offer or is it like I said yesterday … you only want it your way?

Pay attention, Dennis-

I answered or otherwise addressed all three of the issues you raised...please review our exchange.

It's clear that you didn't like my responses...but I did respond.

And actually (responding to you again), I remember the Reagan amnesty quite clearly. The millions here illegally were given a path to citizenship, but the other part of the deal, border enforcement, was never implemented. Since I didn't vote for Reagan for either of his terms, it's quite easy for me to say his comprehensive immigration reform was an abject failure. As a result, we now have an additional 12-20 million illegals living in the United States.

It is precisely because of Reagan's failure to completely implement reform with border security that the public is insisting, quite correctly, that THIS time border security comes first. We can sort the rest out later.

President Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to ignore the public's views on a number of issues, but only at great political cost and expediture of political capital.

The illegal immigration/ Arizona lawsuit issue is just another in what's becoming a long line of unpopular stances.

In the up-coming mid-term elections, we'll see what price he's paid for being politically tone-deaf, Dennis.

Mixed, there was not a yes, no or maybe in any of your answers like in mine. You answer like a Politian – never give a direct answer and deflect whenever possible.

You still have yet to provide any ideas on how Congress can/will pay for all this.

This is my primary question so please answer. I want to know how to fund boarder security and immigration reform (whatever it takes is not an optional answer) and assume it will cost at least $100 billion:

a) Increase deficit

b) Get money from other programs and, if so, which one(s)

c) Special tax (like a war tax)

Clara-after I read you reply, I went on a search to find out if it was true that some of the hijackers had come through Canada-I seemed to remember hearing that that was not true. It isn't.

In fact, it was janet Napolitano who corrected that misinformation,earlier this year.

What is frightening, to me at least, is that eight of the hijackers were registered to vote. How? Well, after they got their illegal driver' licenses, they filled out the motor voter form. This has been reported in both the Wall Street Journal and Washington post, in 2003 or '04, I believe.

Why no hue and cry? Why no media scrutiny of how easily illegals can register to vote?

And, Clara? given the dearth of media scrutiny, it begs the question-

how many DO vote?

I don't know, and neither do you. It behooves our illustrious Fourth Estate to look into it. Think they will?

Larry, Minot, N.D.

You don't understand the principles America was founded on. This isn't about what to do with people who are here illegally. Throw them in jail, deport them, whatever, that's not the point. The Arizona law requiring police to take those into custody they suspect are here illegally is a bad law, unconstitutional, just plain illegal in itself, not to mention a terrible thing to put on the police. In America, we don't take people to jail because we suspect them of a crime, without evidence. It's a basic principle of our constitution. My God, tea partiers rant and rave about having to have social security numbers, they worry about any kind of government authority looking at them, but they're ok with police being able to detain ANYONE without probable cause? The hypocricy is breathtaking.

Dennis-

The cost of securing the border should be part of the defense budget, since it's a national security issue.

And...truth is, Dennis, I'm NOT a politician. Not an elected official.

Unlike your own U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative, it's not my job to answer your in-the-weeds federal budget questions. Maybe you could attend a local townhall meeting? That is, if your local elected officials still actually talk and listen, face-to-face, to constituents like you?

Shouldn't your question about specifics be addressed to them? That's what they're paid to do.

That said, I still expect them to find the funds to defend the country's borders.

Although...if there's a paycheck involved, depending on the amount, I might be willing to wade into the details of the current $3.7 trillion federal budget in an effort to come up with the necessary funding to defend U.S. sovereignty.

You willing to pay, Dennis?

I'm prepared to offer a discount on my already-reasonable rates.

So is everything this administration wants to do just suppose to be rubber stamped by the republicans ? Health care, Financial reform, bail outs, out of control spending, amnesty, appointees ? For my part I am glad somebody is there to put the brakes on......and I am not a Republican

John,

I agree with you. I am not in favor of aboloshing the filibuster. I am; however, in favor of REQUIRING that anyone wishing to use a filibuster to block a vote or debate MUST take to the floor and actually speak until the filibuster is broken or debate is abandoned. We cannot simply allow the threat of a filibuster to block all action in the Senate any longer. I know this is the GOP's only political strategy for the fall elections, but this is NOT how we get America's business taken care of.

If you have a LEGITIMATE argument and a reason (that you can espouse!) for your vehement opposition, get up on the floor and make your impassioned pleas for votes of support. If you cannot voice your position logically and clearly for ALL of America to hear, consider, and evaluate, get the hell out of the way and let the rest of us accomplish this country's business. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

John B.

All holds should be made public. If you (the politician) disagrees with something that is fine and their right, but they have to have the balls then to ID themselves. I think if they had to tell the public that I was the one that screwed this up, maybe then they will stop it. I do not have a problem with filibusters either as long as the people doing it have to stand up and talk. See how soon they will loose their taste when it cuts into happy hour.

Disgusted,

I also agree with you that Senators should be required to filibuster FOR REAL, not just threaten to do so. Reid did that ONCE and the Republican'ts caved immediately.

Perhaps its controversial because it involves the health care reform that the majority of AMericans were opposed to. What is the Democratic administration afraid of? If this health care reform is the greatest think since sliced bread why would they be worried

Pat,

Please do not confuse "the majority of Americans" with "the majority of Americans that watch Faux News." You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts...

Dangerfield,

I will not bother to refute your numbers as I am quite sure you will rabidly defend them even in the face of the direct proof that debunks them.

No, instead, I will simply poke a large hole in your supposition. Yes, BOTH parties take money from big business. I would personally be very much in favor of totally publicly funded elections to eliminate the influence of big business on our politics. Until we can get to that point; however, all we need to do is really very simple... I am not so much interested in who is contributing as much as I am interested in HOW THEY VOTE. If a politician takes millions from big oil, but stands up for Americans and votes to eliminate the $75 million cap on liability, then I could care less about the contributions because, at the end of the day, the politician did the right thing! If the politician takes millions and votes to BLOCK the removal of the cap on liability, then you know where their loyalties lie.

The problem with the GOP and the way they are perceived is not because they take a ton of money from special interests. It is the life blood of ALL politicians and they will ALL take what they can get. The problem the GOP has is that regardless of who contributes what, the GOP consistently VOTES to protect and support big oil, wall street, big insurance, etc. When you have Barton apologizing to BP and many in the GOP applauding his courage, that is a perception problem not easily solved in the next 4 months or so...

"I will not bother to refute your numbers as I am quite sure you will rabidly defend them even in the face of the direct proof that debunks them."

That pretty much negates anything you say afterwards, as they are not my numbers but those of the Federal Elections Commission...and they are kind of , uh, official..

as to "rabidly defending", not really, in the face of verifiable statistics from a non-partisan, accepted reputable source, like opensecrets.org or the FEC, a reasonable person would certainly consider them.

Please debunk, or at least provide the "direct proof" debunking the sources listed and I will be happy to listen to anything you have to say on the topic. To claim that you have contrary information without citation is hard to take as credible...sorry

Tell you what Dangerfield. I can accept your numbers as fact to resolve the impasse.

Now that we have that settled, how about you address the rest of my post since THAT was what the substance was about. Or is subtlety lost on you?

Subtlety is not lost on me but I can smell BS a mile away. Thanks for proving that you were full of it when you said;

"I will not bother to refute your numbers as I am quite sure you will rabidly defend them even in the face of the direct proof that debunks them."

You were just BSing and when called on your so called "direct proof" it turns out that of course you have none. And you don't get to decide what is and isn't germane to a discussion you decided to enter into with someone.

"To claim that you have contrary information without citation is hard to take as credible...sorry"

That you made a claim that you could not support renders you not credible to me, as you could easily have made the same contentions without the false claim that the accurate and verifiable statistics I posted were somehow tainted or false.

You can't be called on your own BS and blow it off by glibly saying "well, maybe I was lying about having other better information, but now that I admit I was full of it, how about my other points?"

or as you said

"Tell you what Dangerfield. I can accept your numbers as fact to resolve the impasse."

Claiming that my info is erroneous and that you can DEBUNK it, is not an impasse, it's you BSing, lying, call it what you will.

There is too much of this fact-free PARTISAN debate here and I will not compound the error of taking you seriously by replying to your obviously none-too-subtle insultingly phrased reply, even in the face of your own FAILURE to produce what you falsely claimed to possess.

Perhaps if you told me why you claimed to have info that you did not possess and why you adopt such an adversarial and insulting tone when engaging someone new, I would reconsider my assessment of your motives, but lacking that I don't see the benefit in continuing...my apologies

One more day that Dangerfield declares himself to be the only honest participant in the debate, all without actually engaging in an actual dialog with anyone.

Dangerfield,

It is clear that you obtain your information from different sources than I do. My information is that Obama received (like ALL politicians) contributions from big business including BP and other energy companies. The numbers you are attempting to make look sinister are being manipulated to show what you claim they show. Obama received $77,000 from BP directly. The remainder of the contributions were made by EMPLOYEES of BP and other companies. You are attempting to equate CORPORATE donations with PERSONAL contributions and they are NOT equal.

Additionally, you make it clear that, rather than actually addressing the questions and discussing the ISSUES (for which you apparently have not even a witty retort in response), you would rather attack my veracity and credibility. That is fine, I can deal with and accept your tactics and mis-direction attempts. The fact remains that what is really important here are the OPINIONS and the feelings of the electorate on the first Tuesday in November. You can question my facts and challenge my veracity all you want. What I want to know is why won't you debate your OPINION with me and provide us with a substantive response to the questions that were posed to you?

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to get serious. I have now provided you with my info whether you choose to accept it or not. That matters not to me. What does matter and what I am interested in knowing is what you think and WHY you think it. I am interested in understanding opposing viewpoints because (unlike most on the right), I am not foolish enough to believe that I am always right and that what I believe is the only way that makes sense. If someone can convince me that an opposing viewpoint is more correct or will provide me with a better outcome than what I may have believed, I am open-minded enough and more than happy to alter my position.

You see, I care about America and what is best for ALL of us. Yes, I want what is best for me as well (which is why I will not vote blindly for the GOP candidate if they are siding with interests that are contrary to my own) but I put my needs second to what is best for the country. Much like those that serve in the armed forces put their life on the line for their country and their fellow citizens. When there is a natural disaster, we all come together for the greater good. What a shame that the Grand Opposition Party has now evolved into a party with no heart, no empathy for those down on their luck, and is motivated only by the desire for the next fat corporate campaign contribution while American families go hungry and are living on the streets. Bravo GOP. Are you proud of yourselves yet?

Great Post Disgusted, Voted!

I myself keep hoping for, and occasionally find, someone who can agree to disagree with me, and do it politely and respectfully. I am like you in wanting to find the BEST solutions to our problems, and more, honest intellectual debate makes for more ideas on the table, and the respect allows one to change their viewpoints if a better solution is shown. I LIKE being able to actually converse with folks that can widen my viewpoint and if they can show me wrong, I accept it. If they are just going to insult me or try to discredit me for the views I hold, then I will tend to fire back, but I do try to converse with anyone who has not proven themselves to be fixed into a second or third hand rant that came from some talk show host where they did not bother to check their facts first (sound familiar??)

I am FOR whatever is going to be the best for Everybody in this Country, not just what is best for the already rich and the corporations they own, but for the real, sweat and blood American People that are fighting for their very lives and livelyhoods now. The Republicans and the Corporations have run us into the dirt, there is almost NO lower to go, we are at the breaking point and it needs to be fixed. The current crop of Repubs are doing everything they can to make President Obama look bad and not doing their DUTY for the PEOPLE of this Nation. THEY are refusing proper discourse and any action which would help us get out of this mess soley because they cannot allow Pres. Obama any 'victories', what they are doing is denying AMERICA any victories in getting this Nation and it's economy back on track. That is why I am so Anti-Republican at this time, sometimes, in the past, very good ideas came from the Repubs, but it has been too long since they have forgotten the people that depend on them making good decisions and concentrated ONLY on Power and Personal Wealth

Amen B. Honest! Voted.

I agree, Pat. I was hooked watching Rachel's reporting from Afghanistan. It seems she anticipated the questions I had and attempted to answer them in her interviews with a variety of people. Watching her walk through the crowds, seeing the average Afghanistans selling their wares and the young boys following along was fascinating. It is not often we in the U.S. get a look at the average lives of these people. I just wish there was a clear answer to Rachel's question to General Hodges of "Is there a Plan B?" Being dependent on the corrupt government over there to get their act together makes me nervous.

Regardless, Rachel, et.al--a great job! I thank you for providing information to help us understand just what we are dealing with over there. Regardless of your political party affiliation, this is great & informative reporting.

Sorry to report I missed it due to previous commitments & forgot to set the DVR :0(

Will make sure to catch it tonight!

Ps: Nice to see you out & about Julie!

Hi Julie. Glad you felt the same way I did after watching it. And to echo Feisty, so happy to see you here.

Feisty, if you like, you can catch last nite's program over on Rachel's website, before watching tonite's program.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

I don't have cable. Any chance I can watch it on the internet? I love Rachel Maddow (which is odd, because I couldn't stand her radio show)

Thanks Pat!

Amy - follow the link Pat provided...

CA:

Isn't that what Obama did? All we heard was Bush, Bush, Bush..........

When you are in opposition, that is all you have to do in America. It has always been that way and will be that way when blogs are old school.

Look man,

The country is divided. There is about maybe 4% in America that is confused or don't even even know jack about politics and that is the only group politicians have to identify and play to. Each party has a lock on about 48% and they are not changing.

InTheMiddle:

One thing for sure InTheMiddle. You give the average Amercian voter much more credit than I do. You say about 4% don't know jack about politics (and I am assuming that you also mean at least some specifics as to current events and the political scenery surrounding those events). I would say that figure should be 25% - 40% don't know jack about these things.

I recall a radio television personality once touring several locations throughout the country (cities and rural areas alike) and asking average Amercians on the street various questions including the name of the first Presdient of the United States. Guess how many could not recall the name George Washington? About 30% of those asked.

Putting aside the Obama comment because we would have a disagreement there because Obama did offer several specific proposals when campaigining for Presdient in addition to brow-beating GW Bush, I would agree that the country is divided. Unfortunately, I would estimate that 1/4 or more of that division is the result of people not educating themselves and knowing the specifics or details of any controversial issue but rather taking their cue from extreme political pundits who twist facts and lie on both sides of the isle.

CA,

I was only referring to that particular 4% undecided.

I know for a fact most in America do not care about politics nor care to educate themselves on the matter. Just face it; politics is boring and people have only seen mostly old white men on both sides making all of the decisions so they tune it out.

Examples: Obama attracted thousands of young people to his rallies because they saw it as a social gathering, rock concert type. My kids went to one and didn't remember anything he said. All they could tell me was there were a lot of people and the music was good.

Older people are stuck in their ways and will not change.

You call people extreme political pundits but if they didn't have an audience no one would know them. I do not watch Fox nor do I watch MSNBC because they are one in the same. Everyone jumps on Fox but yet give MSNBC a pass.

One way to get the politicians to fulfil their duty to the Country, is to have term limits. Politicians would not be constantly campaigning, could do their duty and then return to their normal life.

Oh, and there would be no pensions, just gratitude and respect from the citizens.

Eric - I don't know about Salinas but in SF they are playing Meg's campaign ad on TV and radio telling everyone how bad Jerry Brown is as a politician. However, all the things she is ranting about are lies. Check out factcheck.org and read about it. One TV station (finally) brought it up and made a big stink about all of her lies and they started to give out the real facts.

Now what the heck is wrong with Brown?? I have not heard one campaign ad at all. He has got to get started and FIGHT BACK the Twitman!

Eric and Elise,

Jerry Brown has to get into the fight, and get into it sooner than later. He is starting to come across as not interested in whether he wins or loses at best. At worst (and I hope this is not the case) he thinks he is entitled to being the Gov. and he needs to do nothing. The Republicans are going to throw everything at him and he better wake up soon or he will loose and another chance for the DEMS to capitalize on a weaker opponent (that lies through her teeth) will be lost. The Republicans are putting in a better fight than us DEMS are. They know how to play hard ball while (I am afraid to say) many Democrats are still playing Little League. We must start pushing back against the lies and the constant hypocrisy of the Republicans.

Terry:

The Republicans are stradling the fence. They know both the short term and long term effects of taking on the illegal immigration issue including what to do with the 20+ million illegals already in the country some of which are employed by their small business interests, mowing their lawns, landscaping the grounds of those priavte sector businesses they are connected too, etc. In the short term they know that these calls from their base to "do something about those illegals" serves their short term political purposes while also understanding that in the future the Hispanic vote in this country will be a moving force to reckon with. McCain is a prime example. When running for President he supported a pathway to legal citizenship for those illegals already in the country (even if it included a fine, etc.). But now that he is in a tough primary race for re-election in Arizona he has changed his tune and wants nothing to do with allowing illegals already here such an opportunity. If forced to provide a stance or position McCain would be calling for the removal of these 20+ million from the country. Your question as to why Republicans have not done a thing on this issue, even when in power, is obvious.

Terry:

Democrats did nothing because they want the Latino vote. Republicans did nothing because it was a waste of time when in essence the Democrats have demonized the issue so bad.

ITM,

I think you are right about the vote issue with both parties. Likewise both parties toe the line on this issue with their base. I was merely pointing out the current lot of Republicans are making an issue of this but are still part of the problem, so why would I trust any of them to do anything about?

I honestly believe we need term limits because of this kind of problem. People say that we sort of do have limits by going to the voting booth, the problem with that is the current incumbent is able to squash any real contender with vast amounts of campaign money. In setting term limits, hopefully this trend would diminish.

The short answer to the question is because illegals only became a problem about 5 minutes after Obama took office.How many rallies and state-wide snit fits do you remember during the last administration?I wonder,had this issue gone the way of "birthers",what the next smear campaign would be?

Clara,

I am really glad you clarified that for us and clearly identified the sarcasm in your post. I was apparently a little too vague myself yesterday in some of my tongue-in-cheek references. :)

Clara: Glad to see you back. You were indeed missed.

Very Nicely Put Jeff, thanks for your perceptions, demonizing anyone will make them "Soggy and hard to light" when you need their support or cooperation. Removing the right wing distress call, on problems that they helped to start and keep propagating for their own profits and do NOthing to actually stop the problem, will go a long ways towards solving the problems. The best way to stop the illegal immigration is to severely penalize businesses and imprison their Owners who hire and abuse (physically, emotionally and economically) these people who are coming here for a better way of life. Stop the hiring of illegals, make the businesses pay a true living wage, and the illegal immigration problem will cure itself to a large degree. If it becomes well known that there will be NO jobs for them here, then they will Not come: uneducated is not the same a stupid and these people have the brains to see that if there is no work for them then they may as well stay where they are, or immigrate here or to Europe or some such, Legally, so that they CAN find work.

Arizona is almost Requiring their law enforcement bodies to become racial profilers, forced to make stops based on the possible ethnicity of the people they stop, whether or not there was a real reason for them to be stopping them in the first place. Arizona would go a lot further with their stopping illegal immigration if they started inspecting EVERY business to check for illegal workers, THEN they would be doing something useful, instead of the racial profiling of innocents on the street. After all, do YOU carry your birth certificate, Social Security Card and any immigration or marriage papers on you ALL the time?? Me neither, so many people, legal citizens with NO reason to "carry papers" will be caught up and processed as illegals just because they don't have all their papers on them, until their lawyers (if they are allowed such) come to their rescue with the proper paperwork in hand.

Arizona needs to get real about what and where their problem really is: the business owners that are profiting off the backs of their slave labor, and deal with THAT properly, once and for all!

I am sure many of you have heard me voice my disdain for the AZ law. In effect, AZ has been QUIETLY amending this law, softening many of the harsher points that were in previous drafts. The biggest impediment of this law was how do we determine who is here illegaly or not? In previous drafts of the law, there was no real way to tell; later drafts state that a AZ driver's license, AZ ID card or Tribal card is acceptable, as well as driver's licenses from states that require proof of citizenship. There are at least 10 states that DO NOT require citizenship before they are issued. No Joe correctly points out that many of the 911 hijackers had VALID driver's licenses. So the question will be this - how can we REALLY distinguish illegal immigrants from the citizenry?

AZ decided to do this in the wrong way in my opinion. I know that I have had MANY posts against my argument, but this bears repreating - it is NOT OK for ther AZ legislature to use MY rights as a US citizen to solve their problem(s) with immigration.

Now, the standard argument is that this AZ law is mirroring Federal Law. After some thought, my question is this - if this is mirroring Federal law, then why is the AZ law even necessary when we have Federal law? This burnishes my point that this is an ill-conceived method to solve a problem.

In a wierd sort of way, I hope that the DOJ drops it's lawsuit and allows AZ to enact the law - for a time (like 1-2 years). There are a lot of 'unintended consequences' that AZ will need to deal with. The Police Chief of Prince William County, VA best describes this. Some of the posters on here have also articulated this point. Where are all of the 'illegals' going to be housed when apprehended? Who is going to pay for their detention? Who is going to pay for their food and shelter while they are being processed?

AZ is whipping up this 'anti-illegal' hysteria throughout the country. I say that within a YEAR or this law being enacted, the people of AZ - like the people of Prince William County, Oklahoma City, Riverside, NJ and countless other cities that enacted similar laws - will be BEGGING the Feds to DO SOMETHING to relieve them of the burden(s) that they have heaped upon themselves. The costs that they will be incurring will bankrupt the state.

You have heard it here first.

One thing you have failed to recognize is the fact AZ has plenty of room in their prizons so much they take californias prizoners. Since California one of the richest and most bankrupt states (caused by way to many years of democratic decay) in the usa wants to boycott Az for doing their job they can certainly house their own prizoners freeing up space for the illeagals to be housed.

You really shouldnt worry about the illegals they will just move to your state and flood you with their high costs and high crime.

Asking Obama to do his sworn duty is a moot point since he is from one of those states that will be flooded by said illegals. Illinois being an amnasty state.

Many of the bloggers here are from the wrong side of the berlin wall and arent nearly smart enough to know that fact.

Beverly, one of the incidents included in the case was that of a black male Republican poll watcher who was told not to "show his face". Fox isn't making the case against DOJ; the attorney who resigned in disgust is the one who brought this public. I would ask you this, tho, Beverly, if a group of people in Klan robs stood outside a polling place with clubs and were shouting racial epithets, how do you think Holder, et al would have treated such a case? Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason!

In the meantime, our Pres has decided to sue AZ for enforcing federal law, which by the way, state/local authorities are to support already. My question is why isn't Obama going after sactuary cities for breaking the law by not enforcing/supporting federal law?

Know your facts, dirt. the "whistleblower" is in fact a longtime Republican operative who admits he has no first hand knowledge of what he speaks. It was the BUSH DOJ which didnt pursue action against the Panthers, not the Obama administration. After Obama became president they did in fact get a default judgement against a Panther for carrying a nightstick in public. NO direct evidence of any intimidation has come to light, nor has any resident of that precinct alleged that they were intimidated or prevented from voting.

This whole thing is one more fabrication from inside the wingnut echo chamber.

John B, yes, there was a default judgement. The judge was waiting for sentencing recommendations when who withdrew from the case? the DOJ under Obama's AG Holder. If you acknowledge there was a default judgement, are you not curious about why there was no sentencing???????????

Perhaps they withdrew the case for the same reasons that the Bush Administration felt it wasn't worth prosecuting to begin with, or any of the other aspects of the case that are stated in my comment but which you ignore.

Dirt because Obama is from an amnasty state they have been breaking the law for a long time.

Jody-the interview with Barney Franks on Keith last night was great. Why do we continue to provide military support to the rest of the world at a time when our finances don't allow that? And we aren't any safer from terrorists. It is the economic and political clout of the military-industrial complex, to quote President Eisenhower. We shouldn't allow it to continue.

I see no one noticed but I meant $4 million of Meg's personal money per poll point.

Steeler Fan. Yes, it was a good interview and I was glad to see someone actually say what I and many others have often thought.

Hi Beverly; Senator McCain is out to lunch on just about everything. This approximate exit date that Afghanistan has been given is a great idea the more I think about it.

double the fun, today, njnbnj?

sorry about that. I have no idea why that happens,but I take comfort from the fact that I am not alone when it comes to the 'gremlins'. for some reason,it only happens on my laptop.

I saw that too Eric - even though I NEVER watched it!

Another one bites the dust...lol

I thought you were the "Queen of Gossip", Eric...

Of course, CNN doesn't have prison documentaries, so that gives MSNBC the edge in quality programming.

I wonder if you can explain to me what right an illegal alian has to jump in line in front of someone who has legally applied to come to the USA?

Many people have taken the time to go through legal channels,costs, and have taken the time to learn english, to come to the USA.

We also have many legal alians in the USA. What place do these people have in our society? Should the citizens, legal alians and honnest law bidding people who are waiting in line to come to this country all be in second place to people who have come or stayed in this country illegally?

They are crimminals and they are commiting a criminal act! We cannot even afford your welfare checks You are already charging that to people who dont even exist yet as if they will have no needs greater then you the real greedy one!