President's Speech

[knabe]

It is so nice to see the lunatic fringe is still alive and well in this country!! Obama has been in office 36 days and it may be time for some folks here to start the research on which country they wish to emigrate too! Beware the sky is falling and the Black helicopters are circling over head!!! They will find you and they will get you!!!!!!!!
Now leave the basement grow up and get a life!!!
LOL  <hero>

what specifically is lunacy?  calling people names is so.... progressive.

 

[knabe]

here's some facts for you steers4u

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601985.html

Maryland's labor secretary, Thomas E. Perez, right, joined students in Annapolis to urge approval of a bill granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants.

Can it really be that Barack Hussein Obama is about to name an open borders guy from Casa De Maryland--an affiliate of La Raza--to head up U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services???!!! According to the Washington Post, the answer is Si, Gringos.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2009/02/perez_in_the_mix_for_immigrati.html

should anyone from an organization called "the race" be allowed to be in charge of immigration?

what say you steers4u?  are you willing to pay in-state tuition to illegal aliens, or would you rather use that money for your own kid's tuition?

 

[steers4u]

My state already allows in-state tuition for ilegal immigrants if they have applied to become legal and that works for me. I will take all the smart college educated citizens we can get in our state. They use less services and pay more taxes so it seems to make sense to me.  I am sure CPAC would rather just string them up!

 

[Doc]

My state already allows in-state tuition for ilegal immigrants if they have applied to become legal and that works for me. I will take all the smart college educated citizens we can get in our state. They use less services and pay more taxes so it seems to make sense to me.  I am sure CPAC would rather just string them up!

They use less services & pay more taxes than whom?

 

[knabe]

My state already allows in-state tuition for ilegal immigrants if they have applied to become legal and that works for me. I will take all the smart college educated citizens we can get in our state. They use less services and pay more taxes so it seems to make sense to me.  I am sure CPAC would rather just string them up!

but why displace legal citizens from college?  why not allow instate tuition from legal citizens from other states? 

why not wait for them to become legal?  why don't you want all the smart educated legal american citizens you can get? 

they use less services and pay more taxes than illegal aliens.

which laws should we obey?

should we eliminate borders?

what authoritative body should have to power to make and enforce laws?

 

[steers4u]

I realise each state is different but we are not displacing students here. I want all the smart educated people we can get here and I would like them to stay pay taxes and improve this state.
Should we eliminate borders hell no and our borders should be secured but how??? Republicans controled both houses for 12 years and the White House for 8 years and did little or nothing. As to the 15 million who are here for me that is easy allow them a path to legal status or the option to leave no inbetween. Sure scream all you want about rewarding illegal behavior but if you look at it as  realistic there is not a snowballs chance in Hell you can find them all much less deport them all and if you do then what?? They are mostly hard working and doing jobs that others will not do!
Oh and if they are criminals easy they do their time and on the release date they are loaded on the plane and returned to their home country!

Hey just my opinion and I could be wrong!!!

 

[JbarL]

When the president says he is giving the courts the right to "reduce the principle"(value of the home) that someone has a mortgage on and cannot pay for, I believe he is talking about "that home" not just "a home" that is more affordable.   Did you ever think that by giving the legal system the right to assign value to things like homes that they are effectively telling you what value you will pay property taxes on,etc.??   What's to keep them from raising the value if they set the precedent of decreasing values now?

What do socialist governments control--the banks--we've already begun to do that
                                                             industry--we've already got money with strings attached into the auto and steel companies
                                                             the press--they're trying to control radio--they already have control most of TV and newspapers
                                                             arms--they are doing everything they can to take away our right to bear arms

Jefferson once said "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

He also said  "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

And finally  "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not!"

This is from the man who wrote our Constitution--think about it!!
                                                             

no one has taken/given....redistribute/devalued/or paid anything for one single house yet......no guns have been taken.....abortions will be preformed no matter whether there are laws for or against it....this seems to be the "lunacy" that the 20/'30's seem to be referring to....they hear it ....but in realty it doesn't exist...at least the way some generations fear of.   the Constitution was written to protect democracy.....not capitalism or socialism.... the advice i'd give to the 20's and 30's crowd...start withthe definition of democracy....see what parts of it you feel like your a part of........and  what pa arts you feel you like your not...."our" democracy is what is qua ranteed by the Constitution...how we maintain the  balance is
is the only variable in its success or failure.....oh yea...and honesty amongst our elected leaders...theres some explicit rules and terms for this as well in the definition of "democracy".....you 20's and 30's crowd are the ones who will have to live with the results of the accountability of these politicians who may have compromised " democracy".....how can "we" help "you" ?.....us " ole guys"  been arguing these ole standards for several decades now ....hasn't changed a thing....how can we help support what you want?...what is it you guys worry about and want ??....besides not paying for your neighbors house....or having all your guns taken away....or your right to have an abortion?....get active and write your state reps and tell them what "you" want....I'd be interested myself in knowing what you all want.......i believe your generation ( as all in the past) should pick your own battles and gain solidarity in anyways you can......dont let our antiquated grumblings.... discourage you from becoming active and tacking your own generations problems yourself....the way you want your elected officials to protect your " rights" and maintain a "democracy" for you to live in....jbarl

 

[knabe]

I realise each state is different but we are not displacing students here.  so every application is accepted, even from out of state with in state tuition?

I want all the smart educated people we can get here and I would like them to stay pay taxes and improve this state.  see answer to above.

Should we eliminate borders hell no and our borders should be secured but how???  use worker verification for work, and tuition, enforce law and it will happen by attrition.  eisenhower did it very easily.  but somehow the media won't report that.

Republicans controled both houses for 12 years and the White House for 8 years and did little or nothing. if you notice, i'm not a republican.  bush had an illegal alien housekeeper for 15 years and was "impressed" she got her citizenship.  the republican party has simply been a repository for failed democrats and calling themselves republican.

As to the 15 million who are here for me that is easy allow them a path to legal status or the option to leave no inbetween.  already tried by reagan with 2.6 million, they allowed another 2.5 legally, and no enforcement.  that's why we need enforcement first.

Sure scream all you want about rewarding illegal behavior but if you look at it as  realistic there is not a snowballs chance in Hell you can find them all much less deport them all and if you do then what??  eisenhower PROVED it was easy.  look it up.

They are mostly hard working and doing jobs that others will not do!  luncacy.  it's all about pay scale.  whenever black market forces compete with legal options and no enforcement of the black market force, this is why illegals do the job.  not sure why this is so hard to understand.  same thing happens with h1-b visas and programmers.  you can hire an h1-b visa person and pay them 60% the rate of a legal citizen.  same principle applies everywhere else.

Oh and if they are criminals easy they do their time and on the release date they are loaded on the plane and returned to their home country!  but if you have no border enforcement, they just come back.  lunacy. 

i would like to add the the drug demand in the US by mostly young people is probably the single most wasteful thing there is both from money and resources wasted on enforcement and the search for meaning by inward reflection of a feedback loop that discourages skill acquisition.

 

[knabe]

no one has taken/given....redistribute/devalued/or paid anything for one single house yet.  but we will with tax dollars.  that's my money.

no guns have been taken.    why the supreme court decision so close then?

.....abortions will be preformed no matter whether there are laws for or against it  true, but why must the government pay for it?....

  the Constitution was written to protect democracy.....  jbarl, this is probably the most inaccurate thing you've ever said.  the constitution was written to protect against democracy.

the advice i'd give to the 20's and 30's crowd...start withthe definition of democracy.  democracy has no protection for the minority.  1789.

.get active and write your state reps and tell them what "you" want...that's the problem.  we have been running on the model since roosevelt.  everyone wants something, but they don't need it.  wanting and getting it is a metaphor for being on the teat, and tyranny.  all it takes is someone with charisma to start it rolling, just like fdr, johnson, obama.  america wants someone with charisma to tell them that what they want is rational.  it's like a teenage kid that wants a car and wants mommy and beta male daddy to pay for it.

solidarity in anyways you can.  sounds like lenin, mao, pot, pay for not working.

.dont let our antiquated grumblings.  antiquated?  liberalism is the second oldest profession.  it started with cain killing abel.

maintain a "democracy" for you to live in.... a republic requires maintenance or vigilance.  democracy is simply incremental populism that historians have proven over and over leads to tyranny.

jbarl  knabe

 

[simtal]

pay more taxes so it seems to make sense to me. 

They don't pay taxes.  What sense does that make?

 

[knabe]

pay more taxes so it seems to make sense to me. 

They don't pay taxes.  What sense does that make?

they do pay taxes, ie social security for some that are not tax based, they pay sales tax.  there are currenly lawsuits in the pipeline to recoup what they have paid into social security.  without their contribution, SS would be even more unsupportable.  that's why the benefit must be cut as well as means testing in a tiered fashion that is progressive.  it's supposed to help people that need it.  SS was set up originally because women outlived men by an average of 2.5 years and women typically weren't classified as working.  but then, people started living longer and the benefit didn't move with it, it remained static, and also, retirement age didn't move at the same rate either. 

 

[JbarL]

.dont let our antiquated grumblings.  antiquated?  liberalism is the second oldest profession.  it started with cain killing abel.

jbarl  knabe

thats pretty antiquated i'd say....but with constituional seperation of church and state .....parralles there seem a bit ironic.....cain killed able over jealousy...would you tell the 20's 30's crowd that cain ( in this comparison ) was the republican or the democrate in your unantiquated comparison....
jbarl

 

[shortyjock89]

I'd say that if we're going to use that parallel, then Cain is BOTH the big parties.  Abel is freedom.

 

[kanshow]

Near as I can tell with the reaction he gets and all that ...  we need to be more worried about separation of Hollywood and State than anything else.  This guy is almost surreal in what he expects, what he does, and how he acts. 

 

[knabe]

cain ( in this comparison ) was the republican or the democrate in your unantiquated comparison....
jbarl

abel was the conservative (not a republican).  liberal policy is based on class envy, hence jealousy, hence killing those that produce.  if they can't kill, they use democracy (populism) to rationalize redistribution. by default, as more and more is shifted to the state (incrementalism), a natural tipping point happens when the producers revolt against the takers.  the only way to delay this is to divide and use fear and envy.  i'm sure 25,000 per taxpayer is the wrong way to spend our way out of our current situation.  we will repay it with cheaper and cheaper dollars, also known as inflation.  completely unavoidable.

to me, jesus' example was to teach people to feed themselves as opposed to feeding them. 

liberalism doesn't understand the concept of weaning unless it's weaning someone from independence by adding another teat at a conservative's expense.

liberals are liberal with your money, conservative with theirs.  conservatives are conservative with your money and (more) liberal with theirs.

this is proven by donations to charity.  liberals in general, pale in comparison, with biden being a perfect example.

 

[JbarL]

cain ( in this comparison ) was the republican or the democrate in your unantiquated comparison....
jbarl

abel was the conservative (not a republican).  liberal policy is based on class envy, hence jealousy, hence killing those that produce.  if they can't kill, they use democracy (populism) to rationalize redistribution. by default, as more and more is shifted to the state (incrementalism), a natural tipping point happens when the producers revolt against the takers.  the only way to delay this is to divide and use fear and envy.  i'm sure 25,000 per taxpayer is the wrong way to spend our way out of our current situation.  we will repay it with cheaper and cheaper dollars, also known as inflation.  completely unavoidable.

to me, jesus' example was to teach people to feed themselves as opposed to feeding them. 

liberalism doesn't understand the concept of weaning unless it's weaning someone from independence by adding another teat at a conservative's expense.

liberals are liberal with your money, conservative with theirs.  conservatives are conservative with your money and (more) liberal with theirs.

this is proven by donations to charity.  liberals in general, pale in comparison, with biden being a perfect example.

or could able be the true liberal.....by giving it all.....thats what god wanted...everthing they could give...able gave all he could in sacrafice....cain chose  the more conservative route.....jbarl

 

[knabe]

or could able be the true liberal.....by giving it all.....thats what god wanted...everthing they could give...able gave all he could in sacrafice....cain chose  the more conservative route.....jbarl

the liberal philosophy doesn't create, it takes.  if the true liberal gives all, then by definition, he must find another conservative to get stuff again.

once again, cain was the liberal.  he didn't create, he only took.  the conservative doesn't give the means to create, he gives the knowledge to create, so that the number of those on the teat never exceeds a critical tipping point, which the liberal is always increasing.

the conservative conserves that which is necessary to create.  the liberal takes that which is necessary to create.

the liberal uses class warfare to stir up envy from those who refuse to create. once a liberal runs out of money from assets that no longer create, because he took them, he searches for another set of assets.  The liberal is always extracting a cost for himself from transactions between two parties while he provides no work himself, yet lives with no risk with guaranteed benefits.  proof is a congressional health care system that is better than the private sector and the military.  the number of years necessary to qualify for this health care is less than the military.  the liberal can not leave the conservative alone because he can not create.  the liberal is simply a tax on a conservative. 

the liberal breaks a storefront window to provide jobs.  the store owner whose window was broken not only has to pay to repair the window, he must pay a tax to keep the window repair industry a subsidy if enough windows are not broken.  the liberal creates a study if enough windows are being broken, it doesn't matter what the number is, he will use that number to rationalize more studies till the store owner gives up.  then, the liberal creates fake stores left over from the assets of the store owner to pay a subsidy to his constituency in the form of a bailout to potential constituents, all the while increasing the cost of business.  the liberal is a financial cancer.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow,*1 when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"
1.7

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
1.8

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
1.9

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
1.10

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
1.11

Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
1.12

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen. 

 

[JbarL]

that pretty well clears it up... .....now the 20's/ 30's dudes ..really got something to make it all start comming together for them....lifes tough here on the low side of the oligarchy.....jbarl

 

[TJ]

cain ( in this comparison ) was the republican or the democrate in your unantiquated comparison....
jbarl

abel was the conservative (not a republican).  liberal policy is based on class envy, hence jealousy, hence killing those that produce.  if they can't kill, they use democracy (populism) to rationalize redistribution. by default, as more and more is shifted to the state (incrementalism), a natural tipping point happens when the producers revolt against the takers.  the only way to delay this is to divide and use fear and envy.  i'm sure 25,000 per taxpayer is the wrong way to spend our way out of our current situation.  we will repay it with cheaper and cheaper dollars, also known as inflation.  completely unavoidable.

to me, jesus' example was to teach people to feed themselves as opposed to feeding them. 

liberalism doesn't understand the concept of weaning unless it's weaning someone from independence by adding another teat at a conservative's expense.

liberals are liberal with your money, conservative with theirs.  conservatives are conservative with your money and (more) liberal with theirs.

this is proven by donations to charity.  liberals in general, pale in comparison, with biden being a perfect example.

or could able be the true liberal.....by giving it all.....thats what god wanted...everthing they could give...able gave all he could in sacrafice....cain chose  the more conservative route.....jbarl

Not exactly, anything RE liberalism or conservativism, but since we are on the topic of Cain & Abel, I want to point out the difference between Abel's & Cain's offerings in the eyes of God...

Abel came to God by faith.  Cain came to God with the crops of his own work.  Cain & Abel both knew, or they both should have known, that God required a blood sacrifice.  Why should they have known?  Well, because the Bible says that the wages of sin is death.  Anyone who sins, deserves to die because God is holy, righteous & just... He has to punish sin... every sin!   However, God is also loving & merciful, so rather than giving sinners what they truly deserve, He promised to send a Redeemer who would die for those sins, so the actual offenders could be forgiven.  When Adam & Eve (Cain & Abel's parents) sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, God killed animals (blood sacrifice) & placed those animals skins on Adam & Eve.  Nothing had ever died up until that point (I can't imagine how bad Adam & Eve felt watching their own "pets" die in front of them & then having to wear them afterwards!!) & God was showing Adam & Eve that sin has a severe cost & that cost is death.  It was also a picture that God would one day provide a Redeemer whose sacrificial death would be acceptable to forgive sins.  Every time an animal was sacrificed in the OT, the people were to look forward to the "TRUE REDEEMER" (Jesus Christ) who would eventually die & shed His own sinless blood for them.  It was to be done by faith, it was to be a picture of what was eventually going to happen (Christ dying a bloody for them) & it was an admittance that they had sinned & fallen short of God's glory.   

Well, Cain tried to please God using his own method, rather than choosing to do things God's way.  He did this despite God showing his parents exactly what to do.   The Bible says, "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness."  It also says, that "we are saved by grace, through faith... not by works...".  And many more verses that teach the exact same thing.  It's a common theme throughout both the old & new testaments.     

It needs to be pointed out that no animal sacrifice has ever been able to or ever will be able to actually forgive sins!  However, those OT sacrifices were a picture of the promised Lamb of God (Jesus) who was to come, whose sinless, shed blood, would & does wash away sin.   By sacrificing animals in the OT, Abel (like Abraham, Moses & all the others) was saved by looking forward to the cross.  We are saved by looking back to the cross.  It all boils down to faith.  Cain on the other hand, was religious (he brought God an offering after all) & he thought that his good works & deeds would save him.  Cain was wrong, because man can never be good enough to save himself... man needs a redeemer.  Which means that not all the people that we consider to be "really good people" or even "very religious people", are going to heaven.  That is also why the worst of the worst sinners can go to heaven, if they will only repent, place their total faith & trust in Jesus Christ & receive Him into their heart.  The thief that was converted on the cross, is a perfect example of a conversion by faith.  Cain totally detested that idea... he mocked it... it made his blood boil... and that is why He killed Abel.  That's why Christians are being put to death in foreign countries today.   

Religion (Cain brought an offering to God) & good works (Cain brought the crops from his labor) are not what pleases God.  What pleases God is a heart that seeks Jesus by FAITH (Abel looking forward to the cross), a heart that is willing to admit that it sinned & fell short of the glory of God (Abel again looking forward to the cross as payment for his sins), a heart that totally believes that a Redeemer (Jesus Christ) paid it all for them & rose from the dead (Abel looking forward to the cross & eternal redemption) & a heart that is willing to surrender to God (Abel bringing a blood sacrifice, because he knew that's what God wanted).

That's the Cain & Abel story.   

 

[kimbaljd]

Yuo're right he is the president of the US. I didn't vote for him & will never vote for him. But it's like Knabe said he didn't come up with this plan. They started working on in 2008. Now if it works (& I doubt it will) then he should probably get some credit for it, but not all the credit, the American people should get the majority of the credit for believing in this country & making it happen. Did you give Pres. Bush credit for gas prices going down last fall? Did you blame him when they went up last year? Obama talked about no pork in his future plans , but it sure is there.

I'm just saying he's your president. I don't see how you can argue that. You might not have voted for him, but he won and you live in America; the people he represents...There are so many people it's hard to please everyone.I'm not talking about what they've done or planning on doing.
[/quote]

Why is it that all you LIBERALS insist on saying that we have to claim him as our president, yet you LIBERALS have whined, moaned, complained, griped and said "Bush is not your President"? Isnt whats good for the goose good for the gander? But then again, it is ok to ridicule everything there is under the son about Bush, but if us CONSERVATIVES make one negative peep about NOBAMA we are being racist and hate mongering?