kapkomet

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) There's a different constitutional arguement to be made on that one, and it's going to be decided by the courts at some point; the whole "states can't make a law that supercedes federal law" issue. Enforcing immigration regulations can be argued to not be a state issue. Furthermore, you could probably also challenge any deportation done under that law as violating itself, because of the whole racial thing. That one's for the courts to decide. The Birthright citizenship law though, that's as open and shut as they come. The state is enforcing federal law. That's SO unconstitutional.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) Actually, as we predicted, polling data on the plan has steadily improved since passage. A solid majority now says "Give it a shot". Actually, it hasn't. As always, it depends on how the questions are asked.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2010 -> 08:35 AM) An MBA and a CEO will save New Orleans! Way to deflect the main point. That's all you guys can do. This guy cannot lead. Period. It shows every day he has a concert, plays basketball, goes to 20 fundraisers, all while screaming about "who's ass to kick" and "it's the most important thing I deal with every second of every day" (oh, was that jobs, or oil, or health care, or ...) This man cannot lead. He's extremely imcompetent. And we're all seeing it right now.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 12, 2010 -> 12:02 AM) It's pretty easy to see how that law is unconstitutional, on its face, without even thinking for very long about it. So easy that it probably wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court because it wouldn't be necessary. If you're born here, you're a citizen, that's what the Constitution says (this is one of the main Birther arguments btw since a lot of them decided to claim it was never about whether Obama was born here but because only his mother was a U.S. citizen and not both parents that he is not a natural born citizen - basically making up laws). If you don't like it you have to amend the Constitution. Okay, there's two different things going on here. Anchor baby law, vs. the law that's already passed. The law that's already passed is constitutional and that is what I am talking about.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 12, 2010 -> 12:04 AM) fixed Where do you get your insurance now, lost?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 11:45 PM) I was unaware that the Nobel Price he was given was for physics and he has the knowledge to handle this by himself but he just doesn't care and/or is too incompetent to do so? As was highlighted numerous times before this incompetent boob was elected. He has no real world experience, management skills, organization (OMG the irony there...) abilities, etc. to lead and get things done. He's too busy trying to figure out how to cover his ass (or figure out who's ass to kick) instead of actually dealing with the problem itself. This is what happens when you elect someone who is an idealist, utopian dreaming idiot instead of someone who can actually be an executive.

You had more of that bulls*** going on today...Nancy Pelosi slobbering and blinking herself getting out about how much of a f***er George W. Bush is for causing all of this worldwide calamity.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) Well, then give us a public plan. That's the only cost control measure that wasn't in there in some form. Totally off topic... you need to change your JinDALL quote to: It's a little more appropriate.

Anecdotally, people are just starting to figure out the shamzus that was just forced up our ass. And they're pissed... unless you're the ultra liberals who think that they are getting health care for nothing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 05:02 PM) states aren't allowed to decide who is a citizen of the country. One of the things the constitution does is decide who is in charge of what, it's an actual existing document with words, and people can read it! It's not just some magical document you can point to whenever you want to act like you are a righteous patriot. States cannot decide who is a citizen? Well, no crap. Now, tell me, where does the state of Arizona under the current law as written do exactly that?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Not only is it not Constitutional, Arizona doesn't even have legal standing to decide citizenship in any form. This is completely for show, and what a stupid show it is. What's not constitutional, Mr. Scholar?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) Show me to where that would've ever come up? All you've done for 3 weeks is attack any criticism directed towards BP and tried to fling it elsewhere. This is a company that has poisoned lake michigan, and now ruined the gulf and will cost those states sooooo much money in tourism and fishing money. But they are great. BEcause they made a lot of money, they must be right. Keep deflecting the point. I have never deflected criticism at BP. But I sure as hell have said BEFORE this ever happened that this guy can't handle anything real. He's an empty suit who likes to look pretty (ugly) in front of the cameras.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) That is about as perfectly said as it can be. Remember being critical of the federal response doesn't mean you are absolving BP, despite the rhetoric otherwise. Look at this thread for exactly that point.

Big f***ing shocker here. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100611/ap_on_...eping_your_plan

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 06:55 PM) He wasn't offering a Senate seat for legislative favors. Really? He was just offering cabinet positions for people to GET OUT of Senate races. That is different, I guess.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 9, 2010 -> 12:59 PM) Its illegal to offer employment - a senate seat in this case - in exchange for legislative action. Why isn't our president being impeached then? Oh, because money wasn't involved?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 04:39 PM) Some semi-good news. The Senate resolution expressing disapproval over the EPA using its powers to regulate CO2 emissions failed today, with 47 votes in favor, including a handful of Democrats. If nothing else, that means there's not currently a Senate majority in favor of blocking the EPA from doing so. That could change come November. But it also means there's certainly not a filibuster-proof majority in favor of blocking the EPA, so it's entirely possible, with the collapse of any sort of climate bill, that the administration will start pushing this route. Technically, by court ruling they're required to do so by current law. It's always a good thing when you can whore out making laws to your courts and executive branches. Yup. Whores.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 01:56 AM) Of course kap. The capitalist, that has ruined hundreds of capitalist ventures could never be wrong, it must be the president. Hail BP, the most christian and noble of all organizations, they were just trying to make a dollar, and therefore, are closest to jesus. Hail hail hail!!! Show me where I've supported BP and said they weren't wrong. But, that's okay... keep protecting the guy who has to go to professors and other acedemia to figure out who's ass to kick.

A better third period here is controlling the puck and staying out of complete trouble on your own end.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 9, 2010 -> 08:54 PM) That's awesome. A part of me says Philadelphia is worn down - you can see it - on the other hand, it's 20 minutes and all sorts of flukey s*** can happen. I like Chicago's chances here, though. IMO, it takes 5 to win this puppy ...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) I doubt it was to protect BP. It was to protect Obama. Exactly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2010 -> 09:05 PM) Same with yours. Except...there's a lot of fire. Bunch of crucifixes and pitchforks. And scrolling profanity in the background. Right. We all know I'm a bigoted, racist f***er, because I'm conservatove.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2010 -> 07:48 PM) This seems like pretty much classic Obama environmental policy, thus far. Its the halfway answer. Offer the olive branch of allowing a very small number to be taken over 10 years at reducing levels, and in exchange get transparency to keep illegal operations better in check. In the long run, its probably a positive net effect. When you look into your sunglasses, a reflection of Obama appears. True story.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) I don't really care whether or not the EPA nails them to the wall right now, what I'd like to see is an effective containment and cleanup strategy rather than the joke we've seen for the last month. Yea, we all would, but you know this is George W. Bush's fault.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2010 -> 09:52 AM) Uh, yeah, Kap. It is BP's fault. No, no... the EPA could nail their balls to the wall, according to Balta (which is a true statement... ironically enough). So, it's the EPA's fault because they refuse to act. But I'm sure George W. Bush told BP to blow up a well, you know, because every policy he had, or did not have, has led to the destruction of the world.