Tea-Partiers should thank Obama

Here's where our tax Dollars go According to Brian Williams on NBC

43% Social Security Medicaid and Medicare

20% Defense

2% Education

2% Home land Security

6% Feral Deficit

Whats left over goes towards road building Veterans National Parks and etc

For each Dollar spend 61% on the dollar is paid for on taxes while 39% is borrowed

47% Households didn't pay federal income tax

Obama's speech at the fundraiser in Miami

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/obama-jokes-about-tax-day_n_539830.html

Bush was not alone in his destructive ways. He had help from both sides in his misguided efforts. Obama gets way too much credit. Dont tell anyone here though because that demands that they look beyond FOX tells them.

"He thinks that he can do whatever he wants."

So far, he has.

Bye,Bye!

"Ted" Bazookaman,

Well thoughtout blog, full of insightful, meaning retic, I especially like the part of;

"This is officially my last post. I can't deal with this ignorance anymore, and it ain't worth my time. there's too much to do now".

Please don't tease us Ted, I'm going to hold you on your word that this is your LAST blog...please say it ain't soo. One question, should we worry when you say "there's too much to do now". Do I need to inform the authorities?

Well, I guess Ted finally woke up and smelled the coffee. Thanks Ted for doing us all a favor. Another far-right, goose steppin extremist down for the count...in the words of Mr Jackie Gleason "how sweet it is"!

Go Coffee Party!

PS Kim, I am soo glad that you acknowledged your official role. The first part of recovery is acceptance and putting away denial. We are all waiting for your arrival in the "common-sense" squad, which is only about 90 percent of America. We will leave the light on!

Where was this shock, anger, and sadness when our government (under George W.) took this country from the largest budget surplus in US history to the largest deficit? Where was the shock and outrage when the value of the dollar fell 30% over the last decade? I find it kind of strange that the tea party formed less than three months after Obama was sworn in as President, to protest the way the government was working, but sat quietly while our country went to total CRAP under the previous administration. I however, do agree that there has been an unimaginable about of spending by our government, which is one of the few point I see eye to eye with the tea party. But I think it goes to show just how close to the brink our country was, thanks to you know who... Apparently someone reported my last post.., obviously they had no response to facts and decided to take the cowards way out!!

Twil,

A question, How did Obama get help from both sides? He has owned both houses of congress from day one yet still has issues getting things done. The largest thing he got done through backdoor deals and paying "bribes". The Republicans have done everything they can do short of all out revolt. Please show me where the conservatives...both parties...have helped Obama do what he's done to this country.

mhbouncer,

The problems with this country didnt start with Obama.., I do recall the Republican candidate putting his campaign on "hold" to tend to the economic crisis. We allowed the right to do it their way for the past eight years and we see where that has gotten us...

I was sad when I wrote this blog about the indifference and contempt that our President has for "the little people" but I am even more sad to read Bazooka has laid down his arms, so to speak. I took some time off from writing due to a tough schedule but I haven't given up.

I "thank" Obama for many, many things these days. His foreclosure program is doing wonders. Banks who were bailed out show better than average profits (most not all).

In the meantime, my fellow Americans take it in the shorts. Thank you Obama.

Do you suppose 1.3 million of those individuals opposed to the Health Care Insurance Reform Act recently passed by both the House and Senate of the United States and signed into law by the President, are in complete agreement with the shortfalls they may perceive in that reform?

Do you suppose that some of those 1.3 million people may find themselves or their loved ones benefitting from this Health Care Insurance Reform in some way?

Do you suppose a number of those 1.3 million who may benefit would recognize and accept those benefits?

What place would those people then hold in the grand scheme of the opposition movement? Would they then be branded "sell-outs" or "socialists" and banished from the opposition movement?

Or would the movement offer to compromise on those issues the "sell-outs" sold out over, simply to maintain a cohesive opposition?

Gads! Compromise?!

The opponents of this issue adopted a poor strategy, which failed them and those they represent. If I had opposed this reform legislation, I would be more furious with the failed strategy employed by those I had helped elect to represent my interests.

Here's another resource for consideration:

http://www.healthreform.gov/index.html

All royalty boarding the Crazy Train should stand well clear of the doors to ensure their royal garments do not become caught.

Mind the gap.

MHB, read the post a bit more carefully. "Bush" is not the only one behind his archaic, misguided ways. Obama gets too much credit because there are plenty of morons in all levels of govt. who help him out. He is not a one-man wrecking crew. Verstehen sie.

Not to be insulting but I introduced the first subject, composed two sentences, and expected one to follow along. I dont need to introduce the subject a second time?

cant justwatch,

where does your thought process come from? For the very last time, this blogger is NOT a liberal, far from it...I do not affiliate with any polictial group.

I simply process information that comes from numerous sources. Some from the left, some from the right and most from the center, hence the word "Centrist", I'll even give you a text-book definition of the word;

"a person who holds moderate views. Centrism is the ideal or the practice of promoting moderate policies which lie between different political extremes".

So your rant about liberal cities and welfare fall on deaf ears with this blogger. Sometime when you not shooting at whistle pigs with your semi-auto handgun, read a little, and enrich your knowledge of the world.

How about taking a course in U.S. History and see how our country was running with the fat cat industrialist.

Nice talking with ya!

Here's a nice read on tea partier's

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/19/martin.tea.party/index.html?hpt=T2

Comments have dried up since Bazooka left. Hint.. hint..

One thought... why would nations institute social welfare programs, income redistribution, etc.? Maybe to stave off revolutions. The U.S., France, Haiti, most of Latin America, Russia before the revolution had some elements in common. Major gaps between the rich and the poor. The immensely rich minority ruling the mostly dirt poor majority. Public education, universal suffrage, social welfare programs such as social security and workmen's comp. have leveled the playing field enough. The trick is drawing the line and deciding when the playing field is level enough.

A few things that are fact.

BUMB is not a centrist from her posts.

Bush did wrong and led the country of the path and did take a surplus to a deficit. On the other hand what Bush screwed up in eight years obama has done 10 times the damage in less than two years, financially speaking?

The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone healthcare, welfare, or any entitlements. It does guarantee everyone the right to work for it.

There is a lot of racism most from the left, if you disagree with his holiness (obama) you are automatically branded a racist from the left. There are also some on the right but they are easy to spot and even the conservative people would like them to shut up and go away.

The government is trying to make a welfare state, why work when you can get it for free. The problem with this thinking is when you become dependent on the government they control you...ask a drug addict if you don't believe it.

The US will be in the same position as California when but who will they borrow from to get bailed out....China? You better start learning a new language, I suggest Chinese.

If they crook in Washington both Republican and Democrat don't think there could be another armed revolution they are mistaken.

Now don't turn me into the thought police for having an opinion. It's not against the law YET.

I would hope that Americans are smart enough to avoid an armed revolution. I have debated this ad nauseum before so I will refrain.

What drove Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine for polio?

"In 1955 Salk's years of research paid off. Human trials of the polio vaccine effectively protected the subject from the polio virus. When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a miracle worker. He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine. He had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/sal0bio-1

Mike....Bazookaman....PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US!! You know someday they're all going to say, "Geez, that dude was RIGHT!" We need you man!!

And why in the world does DUMB keep calling you "Ted"??? Gotta good laugh over that one.

P.S. Kim, your blog is one of the few I enjoy reading. Don't let them intimidate you. You always hit the nail on the head. Keep up the good work!

Kim first started blogging about Obama February 6th 2009. He was only 1 month in office when she found fault with him,

1 month in office WOW ! That really tells me something about Kim...she doesn't have any patience and she finds fault easily. Does she find fault so easily with herself, family and friends??

On another note did you know All four guns used in the Columbine mass shootings were bought from private sellers at gun shows. None of the firearms required a background check.

Unfortunately, the Gun Show Loophole that allowed this horrible shooting to occur over a decade ago has still not been closed.

I suppose if Obama goes after this all the Republicans will oppose any thing he tries to do to keep us all safe.

STAND BY YOUR CHICKEN HA ! Heres a Republican Senate candidate from Nevada,

( Sue Lowden) who suggested we should get health care by bartering stuff like chickens.

Can you imagine having cancer treatments and showing up with a couple chickens to pay your bill. HA !

And then there is Tennessee's State Representative Mike Bell who suggests paying with vegetables. Only in America ............

"On another note did you know All four guns used in the Columbine mass shootings were bought from private sellers at gun shows. None of the firearms required a background check."

Hmmm I thought it was three of the four. Not that it matters as I'm sure the folks that bought the guns at the gun shows for these underage criminals would have passed the background checks anyway.

"Unfortunately, the Gun Show Loophole that allowed this horrible shooting to occur over a decade ago has still not been closed."

It's laughable that you think a gun show allowed this or any shooting to occur!

Not that it matters as I'm sure the folks that bought the guns at the gun shows for these underage criminals would have passed the background checks anyway.

My point: They are going to get them anyway and get them anyway they can. Unfortunately things like this are going to happen. All you can do is try to be prepared or hope that your neighbor is and can save you too. A lot can happen while Joe citizen waits for Joe police officer to show up.

Riverboy

I think who ever buys a gun at a gun show should show a weapons permit OR if no weapons permit then a background check. That would keep guns out of some thugs hands however not all thugs as they I am sure no how to get a weapon when they need one

Riverboy

This article on columbine shooting says it was 3 guns bought at a gun show. Any one know where the 4th gun came from?......... and also says there was no background check on the buyer

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0420/On-Columbine-school-shooting-anniversary-...

cjw I got my information from the tv last night

and NO I don't watch the IDIOT GLEN BECK

Speaking of Idiot's your George Bush obviously didn't know how to go about Health Reform.

I agree we have some Dumbocrats as well as some REPUBLICANTS

Bazooka, great to see you back. I missed ya. The voice of reason. I knew you would not let me down. Happy reading has again returned. HA!

Bazookaman nice to see your return. Sometimes we need to step away for awhile.

Speaking of the illegals what do you all think about the Arizona Governor signing into law immigration enforcement?

I think its going to lead to some problems.

I think it is great. Ole Obama is having a problem with it. Says only the Fed govt should be making immigration laws that would affect all States. He is already checking Arizonas immigration enforcement law to see if it is legal. There is no way he wants States to do it on their own. Guess his Aunt best not show up in Arizona huh? LOL. Arizona knows it has a problem, and is trying to manage it. Isn't that what State legislatures and governors are supposed to do. Yeeaah.

Kudos to Jan Brewer for 'growing some', even if she didn't have to because she is a woman, and signing a bill that will help law enforcement crack down on illegal immigration. It's hard to believe that more wasn't done about this long ago.

Yes, Mike, I know that you DO NOT want to be right. I know that ego has NOTHING to do with this. It just happens that you ARE right and someday, likely in the not too distant future, some of these folks are going to have to admit that ole Bazookaman knew EXACTLY what he was talking about (I can already hear them groaning). And I agree with you on drawing pictures for the liberals...there's not enough paper in the world!!

The way I've heard this law explained is, law enforcement officers in the state of Arizona are now permitted to arbitrarily check the identification of any person, and they are required to challenge any person that the officer may perceive as not being "one of us".

I don't have any problem with providing identification at the bank, or the doctor, or the base, or when I buy a gun.

But if anyone, whether "us" or "them", in the state of Arizona elects not to provide identification to state law enforcement officers, may they expect be taken into custody? What factors will state law enforcement officers consider before taking someone into custody?

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is going to get very interesting in the state of Arizona and I will be watching to see how this all plays out.

Under this law Officers can arrest people who cannot prove their legal residency upon questioning

and you call Obama a Nazi or a communist.

If they forget to carry their papers on them they will be arrested. What about a legal Hispanic who gets stopped and arrested because he doesn't have any ID on him? Many times I leave my house with NO ID. Can you really tell from appearance who is legal and who isn't?

If its not racial profiling then their going to be looking at blood hair blue eyed folks too.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/2010...

Since the Federal government has taken the necessary legislative action to get the virtual fence on line, it seems the Federal government is fulfilling their responsiblities as set forth in Article IV, Section 4, to include "...;and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." Since the Federal government is fulfilling it's Constitutional duty through Article IV, Section 4, it seems to me any argument calling forth the Xth Amendment is negated.

Since we're all for fiscal responsibility, can we agree that it's a good idea for those responsible take a step back and reevaluate this project?

One of the usual complaints of the Right is that this regime is practicing a socialist totalitarian style and that we will be living in 1950's Russia soon. But what is even better is that most conservatives have no issue with this law in Arizona that has generated so much debate. They are ok with giving the government this much control but want their hands out of other pies. This sounds like a rationalization of one's prejudices.

The U.S. and States have a right to protect their own borders. Simple. Why would we object to making foreigners follow the law. Why would we object to forcing them to leave our country if they broke the law? They steal from our system of education, healthcare, welfare, you name it,because they are illegal and have no right to those systems. Wouldn't one object to another person coming into their home (squatter)and taking it over while the owner is on vaction and unable to watch it? The illegals have broken the lawful boundaries.

I believe in protecting your own, no one has the right to cross the line illegally and basically use and steal what others have worked for.

I wouldn't want anyone coming in and taking over my home, and I surely don't want them coming into my State and country and taking it over either.

I don't understand why this has ever become such an issue. Your break the law you pay. Simple, the immigration law is broken, stop the entrance, send them back.

The right clamor about the totalitarian regime and that each person has inalienable rights. Freedom from the prying eyes and hands of government is a primary tenet. Oh.. but they will relax that one when it comes to Hispanics and suspected illegals. The government can intrude into their lives but not ours. That is the contradiction.

They are paranoid about external invasion or infiltration but yet have no issue when the U.S. muscles their way into other countries largely for our benefit. Iran/Iraq/North Korea are to be left out of this commentary. It is to say that they are ok with government intervention just as long as they are not involved. Destroy their lives just as long as I am not affected.

I think this new law in Arizona is going to intrude on US citizens walking down a street.

My husband is Indian, in the summer he gets a very dark tan. If he goes into paul's he gets stopped by Hispanic's asking him in spanish where this & that is. He doesn't speak or understand Spanish....

Get my point?

I am all for getting rid of illegal's especially the criminal ones. I am for giving good people who come here a chance.

I don't think this is going about it the right way...

A light skinned man is walking down the street. He is a legal, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. But he is suspected of being a child molester. With no probable cause, he is detained, beaten, and his civil rights violated. If there was a law justifying this, the Right wing would rise up in uproar. Their mouths would not quit nor would their keyboards get a rest.

Now, lets say that a Hispanic, law-abiding, tax-paying guy is walking down the street. He is a suspected illegal alien. He is harassed and so on. I dont see the Right lifting a finger in protest. That is justified.

I dont support unlimited immigration and so on. I agree with most on the Right but I find that their arguments dont hold water. They are porous and show their ingrained prejudices more than they show any logical construct. Condemning government intervention on every front but this seems a bit suspect.

MsMaryin, you must have moved here from California. As far as getting stopped without your ID (Drivers License) you can be detained and even arrested if operating a motor vehicle with it on your person. The police don't do this because they have better things to do, they would rather give you a ticket where you have to show proof within a certain amount of time or a warrant will be issued.

As for your husband being asked questions in Spanish one would find a simple solution. LEARN TO SPEECK ENGLISH, when I lived in Germany I learned some German, when I when to Turkey I learned some Turkish and I was only a guest for a short time. How about speaking the accepted language, all he has to do is look at them and say "NO ABLA"

Oh my god, Ted's back, and once again he's written another manifesto...you promised me Ted that you wouldn't come back, but now that I think of it, I kinda miss ya and your blogs that seem to make no sense at all.

Ted, I didn't quite know what your talking about when you said in your recent manifesto about quote "I really don't have anything more to say, that isn't gonna be said 203 days from now, or less." Do I need to inform the authorites Ted?

Lastly, I am hurt that you don't know where I got the name Ted..."Ted?"..............couldn't tell you. Don't care, and coming from Dumb, it's of no importance anyway.

Here is a clue "Theodore John Kaczynski" Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the "Unabomber Manifesto")

Get it now, Bazookaman...unabomber...get it? Your endless wordy mini manifesto's you write that make no sense and go one and on and on..get it?

Welcome back Ted...I've missed ya, let the games begin again...yep hee!

There is this law that everyone knows. It may go by other names. It may just be ingrained and not possess such titles. This is the law known to economics and all business types as "The Law of Diminishing Marginal Return". It means that there are points in time where the gain achieved from an action is no longer greater than its cost. I know that it will appear abstract and unrelated but just think a little. In the border dispute, there comes a point where the "gains" will be exceeded by cost. Now, again I know there are some who want unlimited time, energy, resources, and people used in this pursuit but good reasoning is not congenital.

If I was the decision maker, I would say do our best to make sure that only the legal ones get through. If they are willing to follow the rules, then fine. I love that the Right tries to appear logical but really their prejudice is what they are defending.

My point in the past three posts is not about pragmatism. It is to show the Right why their arguments dont hold water. I think they have the right idea but backing it up with faulty logic is not going to hack it up.

We debate with the intent to change or influence someone else. We want them to listen, interpret, and hopefully come to our side or be content with not responding any further. Trying to accomplish that task with lame, outdated, quasi-prejudicial reasoning is not going to "convert" naysayers. Am I clear enough?

I am deliberately vague because I know that the issue does not have a one-size-fits-all solution like some would think. Action-reaction, risk-reward, cause-effect. Obama or whoever leads the country is in a no-win situation with this one. No matter what they do, there will be yahoos like us bickering, complaining, whining, etc. Freedom of Speech also means that they guarantee the right to perpetual complaining.

I've read the Declaration of Independence.

Twice.

What now?

It is my assumption that the "Right" does not just type or talk to fill up time. I assume as well that they wish to spur on actions desirable to their cause. Being that they are not the only ones involved in the issue, they have to come up with a more compelling line of logic or argument. I guess this is a bit of coaching on my part. Telling those who complain that with their current reasoning they are going to look dumb.

Specifically, if they are going to complain about the present regime's supposedly tyrannical, absolutist ways but condone harassing suspected illegals. If individual rights are a guiding principle, this should not have exceptions.

Taking action just to do something rarely works. If the cost is high, one needs to have more in their arsenal than simple willingness to proceed. I am willing to travel to Brazil but does that mean that it is a wise decision.

I've read the Declaration of Independence.

Twice.

What now?

Regardless of the grievances addressed in The Declaration of Independence, it is not the law of the land.

We work through the foundation provided by the Constitution.

I'll agree with twilcox1978. We'll always be bickering, complaining, and whining. I'll bet there was plenty of bickering, complaining and whining (although more eloquent) when drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were written. Neither of these documents enjoyed unanimous approval of their first drafts. It took a few years to persuade the States to ratify the Constitution.

Some of the men involved in the process of drafting those documents may have had a conniption or two over the language contained therein, storming out of discussions, vowing never to return until their concerns were addressed to their satisfaction, etc., but in the end, they created a system that they all felt was worth defending, whether or not they all agreed with all of the articles, clauses or phrases.

Bazooka,

You bring up some good points. Only talking about the border issue, there has to be a middle ground between a 2000 or so mile long wall and what is going on now. We have debated this before so I wont rehash it. Arizona is begging for law suits. That is not right but you have to admit that its inevitable.

Who employs the illegals in Arizona? What does immigration do to the businesses that hire them?

Guess hurting someone's feelings by asking them for their driver's license if they are doing something suspicious is worse than murder, drug dealing, human smuggling, and other crimes. Oh lets not forget the first crime entering America illegally. The Arizona government is just trying to protect the law abiding citizens of their state a job the federal government has failed to do for the last 20 years or so. This is not a right/left thing it is a common scene thing.

Hey, Bazooka "Ted" just a question for you. When you blog, are you sitting on the throne with a laptop? That's the only reason I can see for the length of your blogs/novels of senseless, uneducated crap. Before you blog, why don't you get out into the real world and stop living in never-never land.

So why haven't the businesses been given a hefty fine when Undoctumented workers are employed by them? I am sure immigration down there in Arizona know where to look to for the illegals. So why haven't they been deporting them?

Bazookaman you know as well as I do that this problem with illegals have been going on long before Obama was even known. Stop tooting your horn that it's all Obama's fault. Write something more current and refreshing instead of the same old stuff over and over again, its almost as if you are trying to brainwash those that don't agree with you. Get over it and move on !

Maybe if immigration was dealt with a long time ago Sharpton wouldn't be sticking his nose in. Do you think that there never was any one pleading with help on illegals until Obama came into office. Wrong !! They didn't just start asking for help.

If they don't have a green card they should be gone and this problem should of been addressed years ago.

Democrats and Amnesty?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111818,00.html

cantjustwatch

What I was saying is we have had this problem long before Obama and it did and still does need to be dealt with. HOWEVER I think what Jan Brewer did, is going about it the wrong way !

I think I got this right>>> one Ranch owner was killed by an illegal immigrant and that's why Jan Brewer did what she did. It ain't going to fly, heck there's even some Republicants that are against it, but then their against every thing, including trying to regulate wall street so we don't have banks collapsing again

Heck we got more being killed on the streets in Chicago everyday where it has escalated to the point where they are wanting to bring in the National Guard to protect the city.

There is no quick answer

Republicans against financial reform?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/27/23-of-americans-support-financial-r...

MsMarylin,

Your facts are hilarious, One rancher being killed. What if that was your father or brother? What about the murders, rapes, drug trafficking, kidnappings, robberies, muggings, and other crimes not to mention that they invaded a sovereign nation and are here illegally that you don't hear about. As for Chicago; isn't that the city the great obama is from. Just to give you a vision of what he has planned for America look at Chicago. Glad I voted for the other guy at least I have the right to complain.

Retirementcanbefun

Your reading something I'm not........ I don't think anyone being killed is HILARIOUS my how you take my words and turn them around. My point>> if you can understand English was Jan Brewer wrote into law this new Immigration law because of one person (the rancher) being killed

And by the way I have been touched by violence, my sister in law killed by a teenager and my brothers little boy being shot from a gun that wasn't locked up.

You must be another RepubliCAN"T who seems to be over looking the fact that what Ms Arizona (Jan Brewer) did for Arizona is more like being a Nazi then Obama wanting to give Amnesty

The part where a legal citizen gets stopped and questioned because of the color of his skin !

Obviously from what I have seen on the News there are many other people besides me who think it is wrong. Oh and at first McCain was all for it but now that its getting some heat wishy washy McCain is starting to change his feeling about it.

I do agree that if your here illegally then you should be deported, however it's not just the illegal's in this country who are murderer's, rapist, drug dealers, kidnappers, child molesters. Maybe Arizona could pass another law if you look like any of the above you should be deported too.

What I don't understand is why aren't they doing anything to the business owners who hire the illegals. I bet we have some right here in Mtn Home.

Well bazookaman That's another thing I don't understand is why they didn't try other ways instead of writing into law the immigration enforcement which is going to cause more problems within the state of Arizona more then what they already have.

I understand your passion for our country I come from a Military family and my ex husband went to Viet Nam my present Husband of 30 years went to Viet Nam 3 times. My husband was shot but he was shot in a country that they kept a secret we were in. They now have revealed we were there but all records were destroyed, which I am not buying

I agree, this is not a new problem. It has been going on for years, talked about and ignored. But, it is better that something is being done now. Better late than never.

The U.S. and States have a right to protect their own borders. Simple. Why would we object to making foreigners follow the law. Why would we object to forcing them to leave our country if they broke the law?

I don't understand why this has ever become such an issue. Your break the law you pay. Simple, the immigration law is broken, stop the entrance, send them back.

MsMaryln,

I speak English pretty well thank you, and I don't believe I should have to press 1 to talk to someone in English in America.

As for the rancher your comments do reflex the idea that the Governor of Arizona signed it for his murder alone. Ever hear of the term "the straw that broke the camel's back"?

As for my party affiliation I'm an Independent that believes you should not spend more than you have. You should not be on unemployment for 2 years, you should be required to work 8 hours a day picking up trash on the roads, mowing community parks, or working on a state project that is hot and boring 8 hours a day with the equivalent of minimal wage. This would give people a reason to get off welfare. They should go back to the old food stamps just make them bigger, no more debit card they need to put some embarrassment behind receiving this handout.

Your comparison about hitler is a little off. Hitler started by gathering everyone's hopes by giving entitlements, healthcare, and grew his government base. Then he outlawed firearms so people couldn't fight back, all the time telling them he has their best interest at heart. That's when he struck and started taking out any opposition. Who want bigger government, wants control of the financial markets, and is trying to get a majority support by giving free things to lazy people. Sounds like obama to me. This should scare you not a state trying to protect its citizens. Oh by the way don't go to the base they might ask you for your ID and even search your vehicle. OH NO

My question is, what is one to do with police that take their job too far. Given new power, some are going to harass as many as possible. We can pretend that they will obey the law with minimal damage but cops are GENERALLY alpha males who like control. From what i have read, all they can is stop them and ask for ID and so on. I am not quite so trusting. 99% of cops and other law enforcement personnel are fine individuals but I could see some taking their new found power too far.

Twil "Paranoid much", you have that 1% in every job. If they take it to far there are avenues to deal with it as there has always been. Believe me our officer's get a lot of training, they have to qualify every year; they have "use of force tests", "fire arm qualifications", and other tests and required courses they must do annually. There has been a small number of less than stellar cops right here in Mountain Home. If I recall correctly one of them is service a pretty long jail/prison sentence right now for messing with 14 and 15 year olds. You start off saying every cop will do this all the time but correct yourself by saying 99% are good. That 1% will be very busy running around harassing people. Having an ID is easy and I have no problem showing it to the bank, gate, Doctor, Costco, anyone that needs ID to prove I am who I am. You're not a cop I take it but stop me anytime on the street and ask for my ID, I will be more than happy to show you at least two or three.

"If they take it to (sic) far there are avenues to deal with it as there has always been."

There has always been a avenue to deal with illegal entrants.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12391381

Wow, how low people for anarchy and crime get when they don't have facts. One person actually went out and created another account with a similar login as mine to confuse people. They don't have facts so they resort to distortion and lies. They also call it "illegal entrants" sounds like someone came in the out lane. They are trying to trivialize the US constitution and law and order by calling things more PC or calling people names and resorting to deception.

Liberty is not possible without some overarching influence to keep people's short term self-centered mindsets in line. Now how much government or enforcement does a society need? There is no magical number. The various armchair experts get on here and profess their knowledge. But really they know just as little as everyone else.

You give Reagan a ton of credit. Do a little research on our dealings with Latin America and one may think different. The U.S. has routinely overstepped its bounds. Monroe Doctrine is just a way to justify our imperialist ways. Reagan along with all of the others before him simply backed up that statement.

I guess a better way of saying this is that the U.S. has acted like a petulant baby. When we dont get favorable trade relations with these countries, we throw our fists on the table, sag the lip, cry a little, and then get mad. Mad being where we sink their economies or intervene with guns and boats. If a grown man acted like this (like Dirk Kempthorne), we would laugh at him. Oh but since this egocentric ways benefit us, we will applaud someone who continues the trend. No wonder the world despises us.

I know that someone is going to come on here about Pearl Harbor but that is not the topic. Those are two totally different circumstances. It may help you feel more adequate or whatever but thats not the issue.

I just love to tear down hero worship and over the top propaganda. I was alive at that time so get off your high horse. And yes I was coherent as well.

Overall, I brought up Colombia because I began to feel ever so naive and stupid. Prior to this, I thought that the U.S. had always been a relatively good partner and that their wacky, primitive, corrupt governments were the cause to their problems. In talking to actual citizens (Yes, I can carry on a conversation in Spanish), reading various sources, and so on the U.S. has been largely a bunch of dirtbags. If it helps you feel more patriotic to know that we helped tyrannical (non-democratic) regimes come to power, then get on it.

These countries were trying to emulate our fight for freedom and what do we do? Oh, thats right we support the group that will benefit us the most. This group makes no qualms about its autocratic, cruel, monopolistic ways. So these well-intentioned rebels in Latin America have not only the iron fist of their own state but now have the U.S. to fight. Its a no-win situation. So the result is that these autocratic regimes stay in power, milk the peasants, and let the U.S. have controlling interests in alot of their profitable enterprises. Oh.. but again we represent freedom. It is no wonder that they despise us. Without our meddling, these well-intentioned rebels would be able to do the right thing. They would get their chance at democracy and improving their way of life. Oh... but that means that the U.S. would not get favored status and we would no longer be the real power behind it. Its all in the name of freedom, right. Well, I call it meaning egotistical. Reagan simply carried on a long legacy of ignorance and hypocrisy.

If governments were just to say that we are going to play imperialist bad guy, then I guess I would have to accept it. I am critical of our propaganda that says that we are pro-freedom. The reality is that our govts. are egocentric. Its the U.S. that backed most of the cruel despotic dictators of the last 50 years. Augustin Pinochet's terrible regime was paved by U.S. trained forces and plenty of aid from the U.S. So what this says is that we will do all that we can to avoid communist regimes even if the lives of the majority are made miserable. Sacrifice the majority for the benefit of the few. That sounds rather anti-American. We are about equal opportunity not government-sponsored oppression.

All in the name of not wanting communist governments sprouting up in our backyard. Well, again if you jack squat about those various countries one would know communism did not have not much of a chance there. Fringe groups will always exist but most citizens in the various nations were after having a U.S. style democracy not a Communist regime. This is referring to the period of 1850 to 1970, just so it makes some sense.

What would work better than an apology is to simple remove ourselves entirely from their affairs and move on. That is what they want so why not give it to them. Our playing God to the world is expensive, costs lives, and simply makes relations worse.

We have debated it before but Obama should have the balls to simply pull out of Iraq completely and leave them be. As for Afghanistan, I would say that we should pull out completely or close to it. Our presence is not going to change them. Their hatred of the West goes back a long ways. It is justified in some sense. I know that every one would rip him down one side and up the other but Obama should not follow the past. It would not be weak to disassociate ourselves from them. In fact, it would take great courage to break from the past and not try to impose our supposed superiority over them. This is not our burden.

In a perfect world, I would say make them all do it the right way. In this utopia, all who entered the U.S. would have to have citizenship, apply for citizenship, or be on some sort of temporary visa. On our end, they would pay taxes and have to abide by the same laws, customs, and limitations as everyone else.

The issue is that to make this utopia happen could extremely costly. More so than the cost of maintaining the current system. I am not sure how we could tighten the borders and not have the costs skyrocket. As for how to "punish" those who circumvent the law, it would be refreshing for the Mexican govt. to step in and deal with their own. A bit of a delusion but oh well.

Would green card holders be ok in your utopia Twil? Those folks don't really fall under your temporary visa category although they do have to renew them every ten years.

I brought my wife over here the right way. It's extremely labor intensive and expensive, but definitely worth it and think it works just fine...if people use it. It took about one year for her to get her fiancee visa and actually enter the US. There was mounds of paperwork and appointments/interviews at the US Embassy etc...and the fees cost well over $2K altogether. We're still not done....this December we have to remove the conditions on her permanent residency status. Her first green card was only good for 2 years. I guess they use it as a trial period...

Once again well worth the process. Up in the air is whether or not she'll apply for citizenship. That's a personal choice for her to make since it involves renouncing her previous country's government and ties. She can't do that until after being here for three years in the US anyway.

I would say that a green card would fall under the category of "having applied for citizenship". Those who attempt to do it the right way draw no wrath from me. I have many family members who have married into the clan and have had some trials and tribulations with the process. They were able to attain full citizenship in the end.

I should have wrote, "having applied for censorship" as the second option in my utopia. I admit to not being all that knowledgeable about the process and its pros/cons.

I will resist the urge to get on my high horse. I dont know how the cost of sealing the border compares versus the current arrangement. It would seem that both are very costly in terms of time, money, and resources.

Bazooka,

Yes, you are required to carry it with you.

Twil,

There's a difference between holding a green card and applying for citizenship. You can have a greencard and just keep renewing it every ten years and never become a citizen.

Green card, is an attempt to do it the right way. So I will conclude on that topic for now.

SUV. It kind of defies the stereotype that it was a white man. I know the comment that is coming forth but I would guess that one was guilty of jumping to the same conclusion.

You don't know that the person responsible for the failure at Times Square used the southern border to illegally enter the U.S.

As I understood the reports I heard, the "bad guys" that were contacted were not South Of The Border Down Mexico Way.

Tim McVeigh was not a Muslim.

It's been a few years since I read the 9-11 Commission Final Report. None of the terrorists that were on board those flights that day entered the U.S. through Mexico.

You're right about him being "Mirandized". The report I heard stated the suspect is a naturalized American citizen. He's not a good American citizen. McVeigh was "Mirandized".

The Navy SEALs have elected to proceed to trial under the rules of the UCMJ. Since the incident took place in Iraq, Holder has got nothing to do with that trial right now, does he?

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/navy-seal-from-blue-island-acquitted-...

And a quote from this last link:

"The military had charged Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe with dereliction of duty based on allegations that they failed to safeguard the prisoner. Huertas had also been charged with impeding an investigation by attempting to influence the testimony of another sailor. Both were found not guilty in courts martial last month".

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/03/navy.seal.trial/index.html?eref=rss_crime&ut...

You are going to have to provide better evidence and logic to prove to me that this guy got here by way of the Mexican border. That makes zero sense. Never has a terrorist taken that route and so why again would they choose the longer, more expensive, unnecessary route? Oh.. thats right, he can fly right over on a plane on a direct flight completely bypassing the Mexican border.

the point is that the possibility of terrorist attacks and the Mexican border are completely separate. If you think otherwise, then show me a terrorist attack executed by purely Hispanic/Latino men on American soil that was meant for the same purpose as that of this SUV or 911.

They arrested a man late last night in NYC for the bomb attack. He is a US citizen

Pakistan-born, naturalized citizen since 2009...I'm sure he had every intention of being a productive American citizen though. (?)

Pakistani guy aside. One reason that we should make better attempts at securing the border is use resources on these people. Yes, most of them work and probably work harder than alot of young Americans. There are some things that are done no matter the status of a person, their race, their age, whatever. It gets complicated but we could ease the burden on common resources.

The biggest problem with health reform is that they did not reform the health problem they reformed the insurance problem. I have health insurance but I still don't like to go to the doctor when I need to because it will still cost me to much. My employer and I both pay for my health care. I believe real health care reform is trying to control the cost of health care not fining people that cannot afford insurance.

This so called health reform gives people false hope that they can afford medical care. Even with health care insurance most of us can not afford to see a dentist, eye doctor, or general practitioner. God forbid is you actually need to have a stay at the hospital.

I was very upset and sad over this horrible death of a young person. Even more angry that, once again it is an illegal. Of course, no all illegals are criminals but if the right method of entering our country was followed, then those that are criminals would be kept out. If not, the moment they break the law, they must be sent back! Instead, time after time, the illegal is arrested, given every benefit that should be reserved for American citizens, then given a slap on the arm and sent out to repeat another crime. I am just sick of this.