BCSbunk wrote:
Please everyone stop saying you want smaller government it is a blantant lie and getting very very old. You just want the big government that suits you.

Ever read the Constitution? You keep setting up the straw men of supposed hypocrites who secretly want an enormous, imposing federal government.

Those wanting a smaller federal government are pissed when politicians overstep their constitutional limits and implement social programs and bureacracies that do indeed drain our economy and burden future generations.

The federal government does have a constitutional responsibility to "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence" and that includes border security and immigration controls. No government can confer citizenship without the consent of the governed. Add to that the fact that the Mexican government promotes the mass migration of its people into the US, and that a majority of Mexicans believe that the territory of the US southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, and you have the absolute necessity that our federal government protect its citizens.

So you can cling to your libertarian immigration anarchy all you want- I'll expect my government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and defend its citizens.

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
Please everyone stop saying you want smaller government it is a blantant lie and getting very very old. You just want the big government that suits you.

Ever read the Constitution? You keep setting up the straw men of supposed hypocrites who secretly want an enormous, imposing federal government.

Those wanting a smaller federal government are pissed when politicians overstep their constitutional limits and implement social programs and bureacracies that do indeed drain our economy and burden future generations.

The federal government does have a constitutional responsibility to "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence" and that includes border security and immigration controls. No government can confer citizenship without the consent of the governed. Add to that the fact that the Mexican government promotes the mass migration of its people into the US, and that a majority of Mexicans believe that the territory of the US southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, and you have the absolute necessity that our federal government protect its citizens.

So you can cling to your libertarian immigration anarchy all you want- I'll expect my government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and defend its citizens.

Wrong.

The country was fine with no border patrols and not more depts.

You are mistaken. It is a bloated waste and no one has shown any evidence at all that opening the borders would do anything it is mere speculation.

Fear is what it is driven by our media and worthless bloated government.

Stop feeding the pig.

We have police and a military no more need for worthless border patrol waste of money.

Nothing quite like welfare for the fearful who cannot take care of themselves.

I grow tired of people complaing about welfare but want a nanny state to protect them at every street corner and surround the border. It is pathetic and weakling.

jhay78 wrote:So you can cling to your libertarian immigration anarchy all you want- I'll expect my government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and defend its citizens.

This and a half....

BCSbunk wrote:

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
Please everyone stop saying you want smaller government it is a blantant lie and getting very very old. You just want the big government that suits you.

Ever read the Constitution? You keep setting up the straw men of supposed hypocrites who secretly want an enormous, imposing federal government.

Those wanting a smaller federal government are pissed when politicians overstep their constitutional limits and implement social programs and bureacracies that do indeed drain our economy and burden future generations.

The federal government does have a constitutional responsibility to "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence" and that includes border security and immigration controls. No government can confer citizenship without the consent of the governed. Add to that the fact that the Mexican government promotes the mass migration of its people into the US, and that a majority of Mexicans believe that the territory of the US southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, and you have the absolute necessity that our federal government protect its citizens.

So you can cling to your libertarian immigration anarchy all you want- I'll expect my government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and defend its citizens.

Wrong.

The country was fine with no border patrols and not more depts.

Tell that to the people of Arizona and the southwest, 70% of whom agree with the new law.

You are mistaken. It is a bloated waste and no one has shown any evidence at all that opening the borders would do anything it is mere speculation.

The borders may as well be "open" now, with 12 million illegals already here, and there's plenty of evidence it's detrimental to our society.

Fear is what it is driven by our media and worthless bloated government.

Amnesty and allegations of racism, civil rights abuses, profiling, etc. are what's driven by our media, not tougher immigration standards.

We have police and a military no more need for worthless border patrol waste of money.

The Arizona police are now empowered to enforce existing federal law.

I grow tired of people complaing about welfare but want a nanny state to protect them at every street corner and surround the border. It is pathetic and weakling.

US Constitution- "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence". Not too hard to understand.

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
Please everyone stop saying you want smaller government it is a blantant lie and getting very very old. You just want the big government that suits you.

Ever read the Constitution? You keep setting up the straw men of supposed hypocrites who secretly want an enormous, imposing federal government.

Those wanting a smaller federal government are pissed when politicians overstep their constitutional limits and implement social programs and bureacracies that do indeed drain our economy and burden future generations.

The federal government does have a constitutional responsibility to "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence" and that includes border security and immigration controls. No government can confer citizenship without the consent of the governed. Add to that the fact that the Mexican government promotes the mass migration of its people into the US, and that a majority of Mexicans believe that the territory of the US southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, and you have the absolute necessity that our federal government protect its citizens.

So you can cling to your libertarian immigration anarchy all you want- I'll expect my government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and defend its citizens.

Wrong.

The country was fine with no border patrols and not more depts.

Tell that to the people of Arizona and the southwest, 70% of whom agree with the new law.

You are mistaken. It is a bloated waste and no one has shown any evidence at all that opening the borders would do anything it is mere speculation.

The borders may as well be "open" now, with 12 million illegals already here, and there's plenty of evidence it's detrimental to our society.

Fear is what it is driven by our media and worthless bloated government.

Amnesty and allegations of racism, civil rights abuses, profiling, etc. are what's driven by our media, not tougher immigration standards.

We have police and a military no more need for worthless border patrol waste of money.

The Arizona police are now empowered to enforce existing federal law.

I grow tired of people complaining about welfare but want a nanny state to protect them at every street corner and surround the border. It is pathetic and weakling.

US Constitution- "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence". Not too hard to understand.

It is difficult to deal with a racist. I will try however.

You keep citing the US constitution and you do not understand its meaning. The MILITARY provides for the common defence. NOT the Immigration Dept.

Yet another big government lover.

This is racism and I predict that lawsuits are going to ensue and the SC will strike this shit down like the Nazi crap it is.

BCSbunk wrote:
This is racism and I predict that lawsuits are going to ensue and the SC will strike this shit down like the Nazi crap it is.

you obviously dont understand the law.

BCSbunk wrote: It is difficult to deal with a racist. I will try however.

What a weak and pathetic statement. Wildly calling someone a racist when there is no evidence to support it, as a political tool, is a dishonor to the millions who have truly experienced it throughout history.

BCSbunk wrote: You keep citing the US constitution and you do not understand its meaning. The MILITARY provides for the common defence. NOT the Immigration Dept.

I can agree with this. I would love to see the military patrolling the southern border and put an end to this illegal invasion.

BCSbunk wrote: Yet another big government lover.

The federal government is big government. The founders knew the growth potential the federal government had. That is why they did their best to limit it. They specifically enumerated certain powers to be granted to the federal government. They left the rest to the smaller state governments. jhay78 is just trying to point out that those big government powers allowed to the federal government should be used to stop this illegal invasion. Those of us considered to be on the right tend to bitch about those big government powers not granted the federal government and rightfully so.

BCSbunk wrote: This is racism and I predict that lawsuits are going to ensue and the SC will strike this shit down like the Nazi crap it is.

Looks like we have another big government lover. You want to use the big government power of the SCOTUS to force the small government in Arizona to not be allowed to enforce law and attempt to stop the illegal invasion.

State government can be just as big as federal government.

BCSbunk wrote:

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
Please everyone stop saying you want smaller government it is a blantant lie and getting very very old. You just want the big government that suits you.

Ever read the Constitution? You keep setting up the straw men of supposed hypocrites who secretly want an enormous, imposing federal government.

Those wanting a smaller federal government are pissed when politicians overstep their constitutional limits and implement social programs and bureacracies that do indeed drain our economy and burden future generations.

The federal government does have a constitutional responsibility to "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence" and that includes border security and immigration controls. No government can confer citizenship without the consent of the governed. Add to that the fact that the Mexican government promotes the mass migration of its people into the US, and that a majority of Mexicans believe that the territory of the US southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, and you have the absolute necessity that our federal government protect its citizens.

So you can cling to your libertarian immigration anarchy all you want- I'll expect my government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and defend its citizens.

Wrong.

The country was fine with no border patrols and not more depts.

Tell that to the people of Arizona and the southwest, 70% of whom agree with the new law.

You are mistaken. It is a bloated waste and no one has shown any evidence at all that opening the borders would do anything it is mere speculation.

The borders may as well be "open" now, with 12 million illegals already here, and there's plenty of evidence it's detrimental to our society.

Fear is what it is driven by our media and worthless bloated government.

Amnesty and allegations of racism, civil rights abuses, profiling, etc. are what's driven by our media, not tougher immigration standards.

We have police and a military no more need for worthless border patrol waste of money.

The Arizona police are now empowered to enforce existing federal law.

I grow tired of people complaining about welfare but want a nanny state to protect them at every street corner and surround the border. It is pathetic and weakling.

US Constitution- "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence". Not too hard to understand.

It is difficult to deal with a racist. I will try however.

You keep citing the US constitution and you do not understand its meaning. The MILITARY provides for the common defence. NOT the Immigration Dept.

Yet another big government lover.

This is racism and I predict that lawsuits are going to ensue and the SC will strike this shit down like the Nazi crap it is.

[size=xx-small](sorry LJ, I know this is your usual thing, but I couldn't resist)[/size]

I Wear Pants wrote: State government can be just as big as federal government.

No they can't be as big. State governments simply don't have the resources the federal government possesses. That is like saying the Mom and Pop grocery store can be as big as Wal-Mart.

Can state governments make stupid and oppressive laws? Sure they can. Do they have the power to force them on all 300+ million of us? No.

Take Arizona for instance. Their projected revenues for 2010 are 8.22 billion. If they overspend they have no ability to print their own monies. The federal government on the other hand has a 2010 budget of 3.55 trillion with expected revenues of 2.38 trillion. A shortfall of 1.17 trillion but since they have the power to print currency they can run this kind of deficit.

Numbers don't lie. State governments dwarf in comparison to the size and scope of the federal government.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Wow! You mean the federal government is larger than the state governments? Jeepers!

I meant big as in "big gubment".

Which they can be. A state making a law that would force people to have health insurance would have the same effect as a federal one for the people in that state. The only difference is that it doesn't cover the entire country.

What I'm getting at is that more powerful state governments wouldn't be making better choices than the federal government until we solve the problems that are causing the federal government to make bad policy choices (no bipartisanship, no accountability, lack of contact with constituents, etc, etc).

Racism? Seriously? Profling maybe...but not racism. My take is that people against illegal aliens living here illegally also would feel the same way about any white illegals.

I Wear Pants wrote: Wow! You mean the federal government is larger than the state governments? Jeepers!

I meant big as in "big gubment".

Yes it is as simple as that.

I Wear Pants wrote: Which they can be. A state making a law that would force people to have health insurance would have the same effect as a federal one for the people in that state. The only difference is that it doesn't cover the entire country.

And a mom and pop store raising prices would have a similar affect on a limited number of people. The individual would have the ability to shop elsewhere for his goods. Like state governments without the aid of the federal government would have similar limitations.

Big business has the power to project price increases over a much larger number of people with limited options to shop elsewhere. That is why they are labeled big business. The greater share of the market you posses, the greater revenues you have to control the prices in your market. It is just basic math.

I Wear Pants wrote: What I'm getting at is that more powerful state governments wouldn't be making better choices than the federal government until we solve the problems that are causing the federal government to make bad policy choices (no bipartisanship, no accountability, lack of contact with constituents, etc, etc).

As for the more powerful state governments, no doubt they are making as bad of choices as the federal government is. But remember even the most powerful states only affect a limited number of people. California the largest at 40 million only has power over a small percentage of the nation.

If it would not be for the federal government subsidizing the state governments with federal funds they would not have been able to grow to the size they are now.

If you want to limit the federal government from making bad policy choices you should demand they assume their limited roll under the constitution. As for accountability and personal contact with constituents at the federal level, well you will find that quite difficult if not impossible. Such is the nature of big and distant government.

majorspark wrote:If it would not be for the federal government subsidizing the state governments with federal funds they would not have been able to grow to the size they are now.

If you want to limit the federal government from making bad policy choices you should demand they assume their limited roll under the constitution.

Sounds great but there's this little thing the Feds use to trump the local and state governments even without federal subsidization...the Interstate Commerce Clause.

If anything crosses states lines (even if they have to make up a reason) then it becomes federal jurisdiction.

Bottom-line: EVERYTHING is a federal matter.

Big Government at its finest.

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: It is difficult to deal with a racist. I will try however.

What a weak and pathetic statement. Wildly calling someone a racist when there is no evidence to support it, as a political tool, is a dishonor to the millions who have truly experienced it throughout history.

Right out of the playbook. When your facts, logic, and ideas fall short, you call your opponent a racist.

believer wrote:

majorspark wrote:If it would not be for the federal government subsidizing the state governments with federal funds they would not have been able to grow to the size they are now.

If you want to limit the federal government from making bad policy choices you should demand they assume their limited roll under the constitution.

Sounds great but there's this little thing the Feds use to trump the local and state governments even without federal subsidization...the Interstate Commerce Clause.

If anything crosses states lines (even if they have to make up a reason) then it becomes federal jurisdiction.

Bottom-line: EVERYTHING is a federal matter.

Big Government at its finest.

I heard John Boccieri make that same argument justifying government-run health care. Talk about manipulating the constitution.

jhay78 wrote:

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: It is difficult to deal with a racist. I will try however.

What a weak and pathetic statement. Wildly calling someone a racist when there is no evidence to support it, as a political tool, is a dishonor to the millions who have truly experienced it throughout history.

Right out of the playbook. When your facts, logic, and ideas fall short, you call your opponent a racist.

Wrong again. I have clearly shown that it is indeed the military that provides for the common defence and NOT the immigration dept.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-arizona-sheriff-opposes.html

I am not the only one who calls this pure and blatant racism.

Footwedge wrote: Racism? Seriously? Profling maybe...but not racism. My take is that people against illegal aliens living here illegally also would feel the same way about any white illegals.

You are a P.O in AZ.

Tell me how do you know who an illegal is?

What make you suspicious?

You going to stop people at random for no reason and violate their liberty to ask for their papers?

There is not one good thing about this law.

Businesses losing money hand over fist over law made by the stupid.

BCSbunk wrote: Businesses losing money hand over fist over law made by the stupid.

I hear ACORN worker are looking ....call Obama he has a data base. STOP STOP This could lower the property value also and create more crime, fraud and corruption.....Dam!

BCSbunk wrote:
This is racism and I predict that lawsuits are going to ensue and the SC will strike this shit down like the Nazi crap it is.

How is this racist? The law isn't limited to illegals from any specific background or any from any specific country.

BCSbunk wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Racism? Seriously? Profling maybe...but not racism. My take is that people against illegal aliens living here illegally also would feel the same way about any white illegals.

You are a P.O in AZ.

Tell me how do you know who an illegal is?

What make you suspicious?

You going to stop people at random for no reason and violate their liberty to ask for their papers?

There is not one good thing about this law.

What is a P.O. in AZ? Secondly, you have described profiling....not racism. They are nowhere near synonymous terms.

P.O.=Police Officer?

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html

Pretty sobering.