I think it's worse that they didn't actually force the states to make it 21. Just tied it to highway funding so that they would essentially be forced to.

If it was a stand alone law I think a lot more people would be upset and it'd be easier to repeal.

I Wear Pants;395848 wrote:I think it's worse that they didn't actually force the states to make it 21. Just tied it to highway funding so that they would essentially be forced to.

If it was a stand alone law I think a lot more people would be upset and it'd be easier to repeal.

I agree you are 100% correct. The states are deprived of power to repeal this.

One should remember this when one trumpets a non enumerated federal power. You never know how they will stretch it. This is why many of us demand a strict adherence to the enumerated powers of the federal government in the constitution.

majorspark;395854 wrote:I agree you are 100% correct. The states are deprived of power to repeal this.

One should remember this when one trumpets a non enumerated federal power. You never know how they will stretch it. This is why many of us demand a strict adherence to the enumerated powers of the federal government in the constitution.

You mean we should abide by the Constitution precisely as our nation's Founders had envisioned the wise distribution and separation of political powers? The kind of structure that would help eliminate concentrating too much power to any one particular branch or level of state and federal government? The kind of separation of power designed to preserve and protect individual rights, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness? The kind that prevents the tyranny of a few over the freedoms of the many?

Shhhhhhhhh....you could get into trouble for thinking such radical thoughts.

The latest Rassmussen poll of Ohio:

Latest Round-Up of Obama Poll Ratings by State

2008 election: Obama 51 percent, McCain 47 percent

The university's Ohio Poll found 49 percent disapprove of Obama's performance while 46 percent approve with 5 percent Rasmussen says 50 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing (with 42 percent "strongly" disapproving) while 49 percent approve. Fifty-nine percent favor repealing the new health care reform law (with 44 percent "strongly" in favor) while 35 percent are opposed, with 6 percent undecided. Fifty-eight percent favor adopting an Arizona-like immigration law in Ohio while 26 percent are opposed, with 16 percent undecided.

And just to show the spectrum of opposing views, check out Hawaii:

Hawaii

Rasmussen Reports, March 24

2008 election: Obama 72 percent, McCain 28 percent

Rasmussen says 77 percent approve of the job Obama is doing, while 23 percent disapprove.

Ohio is probably the more "mainstream" of voter trends anymore. Or rather, they are closer to the actual median of percentages than say, Texas or Hawaii.

ccrunner609;396036 wrote:I love the "go to war" thing about Bush.......Bush was backed into a corner on that one when over 3,000 people were killed when some airplanes were flew into a building. If those planes werent flown into those buildings, we would of never went into Iraq.

I guess Bush never let a good crisis go to waste either.

IMO, Iraq was on the drawing board of the Bush administration from Day One. 9/11 just accelerated the timetable.

ccrunner609;396036 wrote:I love the "go to war" thing about Bush.......Bush was backed into a corner on that one when over 3,000 people were killed when some airplanes were flew into a building. If those planes werent flown into those buildings, we would of never went into Iraq.

I guess Bush never let a good crisis go to waste either.

Well I mean, Afghanistan I sort of agree with you. It made sense to go in and remove the Taliban/wreck as much of Al-queda as we could though I think it should never have lasted anywhere near as long as it has. Iraq is the one that I have a huge problem with. Sadaam never had wmd and we knew it. Condoleeza and Colin Powell even said so just prior to 9/11. In fact, Powell said that Saddam couldn't even project "conventional power" against his enemies. How did that turn into what we were sold in 2003 of them almost assuredly having WMD and having large stocks of other chemical weapons and a powerful army?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I long since lost the link to the site, but Saddam gave a pretty detailed interview prior to his execution in which he admitted that he worked like hell to pump the idea that he still had WMDs...mostly to keep Iran at bay. He said he didn't think that the US would actually pull the trigger on him, despite the notion that he had the weapons.

ccrunner609;396108 wrote:First off, Iraq didnt have anything to do with it but like I said, 9/11 made it happen.

As for "not having WMD".....anyone and everyone sais that now but lets not forget that EVERYONE in the world thought they had them back then. Do you remember him killing thousands? Its common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack


Do you remember all the UN resolutions he was ignoring? Do you remember him kicking everyone out of the country? If he didnt have WMD's he sure fucking made it seem that way didnt he? Or dont you remember all that stuff?

Dont ignore history just to serve your political point of making Bush's decisions look bad now when 99% of the world went along with them then.

1980s Iraq is completely different than early 2000s Iraq. The same people who told you that he was a giant threat and had WMDs had been saying how he didn't have WMDs or the power to even wage conventional war literally in the months and years preceding us going in.


If we're going to wage war based on what a country was like or it's attack capabilities were 20 years ago we might as well start preparing to go into Russia and a bunch of other places. The only thing that should have been considered if we were talking about going into Iraq is "Did they aid in 9/11 and do they pose a direct threat?" the answer to both of those questions was "no" and the people in charge knew that. But we went anyway.

Jan Brewer is quickly becoming one of my favorite governors ever.

Is it possible for a state like Arizona to sue the federal government for being jackasses? 'Cause if so, I'd be all for it.

so our government supports criminals? thats nice to know. im going to traffic cocaine, murder a few people, and rob a bank now.

Good for the Justice Department....this will be removed either through lawsuit or the AZ Government abolishing it

gibby08;396474 wrote:Good for the Justice Department....this will be removed either through lawsuit or the AZ Government abolishing it

I don't know how it could be good for anybody.

-First off the government, just by its derision of this bill, has furthered the gap between The People and the federal government. The estrangement will be very difficult to overcome in the future, if at all.

-The federal government dropped the ball on this from the get-go. Nobody else. And now for our federal government to try and portray this as Arizona's fault is so ridiculous that only basket weavers and lobotomy patients can find it in themselves to swallow the governmental nectar.

-The only way the government can "fix" this is if they in turn actively start repairing the situation, in a real manner, themselves. This will not happen, as the federal government wants the power to give amnesty to illegal in order to secure another voting block.


Gibby, I'm starting to think that all your posts are in jest, because nobody (that I've seen on this forum) is that seriously in love with the actions/lack thereof, of our federal government pertaining to this issue.

*EDIT

Again, how causing the rift between Americans and their (federal) government to widen to be considered good is beyond my reckoning.

I would like for you to explain, logically, how this is good?

The only thing that has widened the gap people the American people is this law....not the Fed

How people can support racial profiling is beyond me

gibby08;396534 wrote:The only thing that has widened the gap people the American people is this law....not the Fed

How people can support racial profiling is beyond me

I with you 100% the idea of taking from the rich, business owner and the wealthy is racial profiling ....

gibby08;396534 wrote:The only thing that has widened the gap people the American people is this law....not the Fed

How people can support racial profiling is beyond me

1. It's not just the law, obviously. I guess you missed out on the Cheron debacle? The widening of the gap is more directly related to the fact that now our federal government, led by the Whitehouse, is now going to try and win litigation against a state for doing what is Constitutionally within its right. ESPECIALLY when the federal government is not attending to its own enumerated duties.


2. I'm guessing that you're either assuming or just ignorant of the fact that not all people from Mexico (if that's what you're referring to) are dark skinned with dark hair. That is a widely used stereotype that will get you absolutely no intellectual points.

Then they should call out the past 5 or six administrations then too

gibby08;396821 wrote:Then they should call out the past 5 or six administrations then too

What good would that do? All of the past administrations are not in power. Many of them are in the grave. Did you think this stupid comment through?

They also had ample chances to secure the border...why shouldn't they have been called out??

Why should it only be President Obama

gibby08;396852 wrote:They also had ample chances to secure the border...why shouldn't they have been called out??

Why should it only be President Obama

Is there fault in the past? Yes. Can we learn from their failure? Yes. I perceive that you are trying to use the faults of the past to shield Obama.

If past administrations are wrong should not the current administration be in the process of correcting them? If they are not do they not deserve criticism? Or should they perpetually be given a pass because past administrations failed? Wasn't this administration elected to make change? Change we can believe in. And when they fail to make a change from past administrations they deserve no criticism because of course past administrations did the same thing? Gibby, even you know better than that.

gibby08;396852 wrote:They also had ample chances to secure the border...why shouldn't they have been called out??

Why should it only be President Obama

Because BHO's in the presidential hot seat. He's POTUS thanks to folks like yourself who put him there.

The past few administrations also got "called out" on it to one degree or another...and nothing happened. We should continue calling out every POTUS from here on out until our southern border security issue is corrected.

Stop sucking down the Obama Kool Aid for just a second and open your eyes.

I'm very curious.

If what Kyl says is true, I'm wondering why in the world Obama would even say something like that to him.

Opinions?

We should call out the President problem is we only have a "Undocumented Public Servant"

CenterBHSFan;397002 wrote:I'm very curious.

If what Kyl says is true, I'm wondering why in the world Obama would even say something like that to him.

Opinions?

I have trouble believing that he actually said those exact words to Kyl. If he did, however, then he just successfully elevated W to the post of "Smartest POTUS Ever."

gibby08;396534 wrote:The only thing that has widened the gap people the American people is this law....not the Fed

How people can support racial profiling is beyond me

You obviously haven't read the law as it specifically prohibits racial profiling, but hey, keep spewing Olberman talking points.

personally....I can't stand Keith Olberman
But you go right on ahead and keep spewing Rush,Beck,and Hannity talking points