samclemens

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 14, 2006 -> 06:18 PM) Cutting off aid to Mexico makes the problem worse. We want them to help keep drugs from getting to our users, we want them to cut pollution that reaches the US, we want them to upgrade their border crossing to help our businesses. We do not want them to have a big military, so we offer protection, etc. We want to keep them an ally. Bottom line, cutting aid to Mexico then adds a carrot to come to the US. That would not help. The better Mexico is doing, the less of an incentive there is for their population to leave. come on, man, be realistic. you really think that any money we give that country doesnt go directly into corrupt officials' pockets? and by the way, mexico is not part of the US; it's THEIR responsibility to fix their own damn economy (this is the same general arguement that libs on here oppose iraq- yes, i selectively reason on different issues). it's our job to keep out illegals. the real solution is to very strictly enforce the laws. if the gov't would actually crack down and simply enforce the immigration laws to a T, making harsh examples out of a few businesses, you would see a hell of a change in a short amount of time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 14, 2006 -> 07:41 PM) I think you are right about a major reason Bush was re-elected. But I also think thats a very short-sighted view, and more and more of the American public is learning that. What's the famous quote? He would give up freedom for security deserves neither? I think people are starting to learn that. And I'd actually agree with Rex on that particular point. I'd rather have a car bomb or two, and the associated death toll, than hand over our rights on a platter. The government can do a LOT more than they are right now to secure this country WITHOUT stomping all over the Constitution. They just seem unwilling to go the hard road and do those things. what are "those things"? im sorry, but what could the gov't do specifically without raising constitutional issues? be realistic in your answer, keep in mind what democrats will and will not block in the house.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/us/13duke.html well, the DNA results are in...and they match this strippers boyfriend, and the stripper's boyfriend ONLY. how long until we call the biggest, fattest duck in american jurisprudence hypocrisy in recent memory what it is????

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 14, 2006 -> 05:16 PM) I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed. Because the occasional bombing is going to happen whether or not we track everyone on camera and tap phones at will. Just ask the folks in London. thats an extremely bold statement that, I would argue, few agree with. until now, i have honestly never met someone that has plainly said that they would prefer to have terrorist bombings on US soil instead of having this NSA program that is listening to our phone conversations. i guess this is where the ranks part ways on the issue. ive said before that i would rather have a prez trying to do too much than i would a prez who sits around and waits to be attacked. i believe this is a substantial reason why bush was elected in the last election.

one would think that due to the sheer amount of alcohol in ted kennedy's body that he would ignite when lightning or any other kind of concentrated energy source came near him. close call, teddy (stop drinking)!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ May 14, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) I'm not seue I see the hypocrisy. The Stored Communications Act lays out a number of well defined exceptions other than court order in which turning over the records would be lawful. This case does not meet the criteria of any of those exceptions. Where are the other exceptions deriving from? estimated conservatively, clinton kicked the door open. yet bush should be impeached for walking through it after the worst terrorist attack on our country in it's history. someone please explain why bush should be crucified and people are wishing we didnt have a two term limit for clinton. QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 14, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) Losing our civil liberties is what makes us the losers in this fight. no...letting terrorists enter the country and commit terrorist acts would make us the losers in this fight (hint- its called the war on terror)

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651 "It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization." liberal hypocrisy, straight up.

can someone explain what scientology is even about

http://www.soundboards.com/?view=56

my question is: how is this group not being sued for billions by these multi-billion dollar companies they are impersonating and humiliating in a national spotlight?

my answer was: NOT Hillary Clinton 100%

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 7, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) And it only took five posts! Once we elect a cokehead president, I guess a pill addiction really isn't a big deal, is it? just because michael moore says something in his faux documentaries does not make it true. if bush had gone to rehab for using blow, i think we could make this comparison only then. admittedly, kennedy jr. and rush have tons in common.

this problem could be fixed if we slowly but surely sealed the border. anything done to fast will adversly affect the economy. i dont like an amnesty anyway because its simply unfair to the people who legally immigrate, but i also am against an amnesty because it will adversely affect the economy, contrary to texsox's claim. sorry texsox, but to claim that making 12 million illegals citizens overnight will not cost the government more is a rediculous statement. Its going to cost more than we take in. I dont need economic data to back that up; its common sense.

is this another argument that implies that illegal immigration is ok?

apparently the father has passed the bottle to the son.

dolly parton...40DD! this game is hilarious.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) I wasn't certain what you were trying to "impact", I thought you meant impact on the immigration reform debate. my bad, i was too ambiguous. sorry bout that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) I'm confused by your choices, how can it have no impact and hurt the amnesty movement? if the boycott has no impact on the economy, it will defeat the cause of the boycott today. the entire purpose of the boycott is to show how much of an impact "immigrant" (illegal) workers have on the economy and how important they are and why we have to grant them amnesty. if there is no impact on the economy, it will prove the complete opposite of what the boycotters are trying to prove.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2006 -> 10:14 AM) While this boycott/protest/rally/crime orgy thing annoys the crap out of me, I have to say I don't feel too badly for companies suffering without their illegal immigrant hires. They are in the wrong as well. i feel the same way.

directed answers, i know...but they do seem to represent the general attitudes i have been able to pick up around the web. you can probably guess which one i picked (the first one), but i wanted to see what the general attitude is here. in my opinion, this boycott will serve to (at least) partially defeat the cause for amnesty for illegals when it becomes apparent how little effect on the economy they will have.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 1, 2006 -> 12:57 AM) I used to work in Big Rapids. It's so unnecessary, there are only 100 democrats in the whole county. very true, its a very heavy republican area of the state. the real contest is usually to see who gets the nomination for the republican party, and half the time after that they run unopposed.

the best thing about this rally is that illegals wont be working. this could force some employers to hire legal citizens, and hopefully, when the illegal returns to their job the next day, there isnt one waiting for him because it has been filled by a non-illegal. please god, let this happen everywhere on a huge scale.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) I think this potential scandal - from what I've read about it - has the potential to be two or three watergates put together for the GOP. That is if anybody cares about election fraud that isn't stealing ballot boxes or stuffing them. even if both parties didnt do this like it was their job, i still would disagree that this could have larger implications than watergate. its so common. for example, it took place in a local election in big rapids, MI (small town- my hometown) a few years ago. also, where i work, we just got hounded by some local reporters because it happened in detroit for a city comtroller office election or drain commissioner.

yawn

ceallis lasts 36 hours?