It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An open letter to the democrats in the US Congress

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thepathoverseer

Originally posted by ToToo
As a Democrat, I must say that I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY 100% with the OP on this.

Arizona IS doing the right thing, and I think anyone that disagrees with what Arizona is doing is absolutely 100% WRONG. Repeat - 100% WRONG!!!

GOOD JOB ARIZONA, YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING!!!!!

[edit on 20-5-2010 by ToToo]



Don't you know, this issue could lead to civil war.


Think people Think!


If it does so be it. Better that than the alternative of grabbing our ankles and saying "please make sure you don't use any KY!!!"

Jaden




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Milleresque

that any state in the Union on its worst day was better that the nation of Mexico on its best


Christ. I am not born in the United States, but this kind of mentality--however quietly inserted--is the ABSOLUTE reason you will fail in your understanding and perception of people living outside of your borders. What tripe.

To say that any member of your INDESCRIBABLY corrupt "union" would make better decisions than that of another SOVEREIGN nation is...pathetic. Childish. You highlight everything lacking in your collective intellect and capacity for empathy.

Have you even paid mention to foreign policy over the last several decades? Do you not recognise the rights of every man/woman to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Forefathers spit from a historical distance, and it is easily enough shrugged away...


He didn't say a foreign nation. He said MEXICO, which is an utterly corrupt nation, bereft of these rights of liberty, justice and pursuit of happiness that you speak of and obviously know not. Hell, even the nation of their coining, the USA has not known them for some time...

Jaden



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Phedreus
 


Gee I bet you were really ticked off when LBJ signed the civil rights bill too weren't ya? When folks railed on Alabama, you thought that was dishonorable didn't you?

Don't you realize that politics is all about standing up for what you believe in? That these folks by applauding Calderon were in fact being honorable to THEIR BELIEFS? Would you want them to uphold yours instead? If that's the case.. well that's pretty much fascism... If you don't want to live in a fascist state, that means you can't be intellecutally dishonest and support freedom on one hand, and then call senators who stand up for their and their consituents belief "dishonorable".

You really need to look up that definition again.


It is not a foreign dignitary's place to come to our nation and berate one of our states publicly. It is our nation's representatives responsibility to stand up and say we appreciate your input, but it is not your place and we will take it under advisement as befitting your place.

It is wrong for them to stand up and applaud him for telling us that one of our states is wrong. That's like another parent going and telling another parent that they need to spank their child, and the parent saying, you know what you're right, thank you.

It doesn't matter if the parent was planning on spanking the child or not, the parent should say, how I raise my child is none of your business and then deal with the child as they see fit.

It is absolutely deplorable how they acted and not in our best interests as a sovereign nation. Do you believe that we shouldn't be a sovereign nation?? if so, I'm sorry the thought that we shouldn't is treasoness against our nation. Acting like congress did, while not treasonous in itself, goes a long way to showing how democrats in congress view our nation's sovereignty and that is what is scary.

Jaden



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This entire issue is Arizonas attempt to stop an exponentially escalating problem. I don't think supporters of this law are racists, I think they are trying to be fair. If you enter Mexico Illiegally you will literally get your @$$ handed to you by the Mexican government. There are Americans living close to the border who are being MURDERED by not only Mexican drug smugglers and cartel thugs, but also by those trying to enter the country illegally!! I remember reading a story not long ago about how an American man stopped a Mexican family at gun point on his property as they were tryng to enter the US illegally. The Mexican family turned around and sued the man in US courts!!!! AND THE JUDGE ALLOWED IT!!! WTF???? A double standard exists for American citizens and immigrants, in our current system why is it that Illegals have unprecedented access to social programs, YET THE MAJORITY OF TAX PAYING CITIZENS DO NOT!

I am not a racist, I love ALL cultures and backgrounds (accept extremists of ANY kind). Mexican people are very industrious and INCREDABLY hard working; many could learn from there work ethic, especially some of the LEGAL citizens here who are about as valuable as a bag of crap and live off social programs. I think a much more effective law would not be profiling any essentially non-white or non-black individual as being illegal, but rather giving the American citizens who live ont he border the right to shoot to kill any trespassers on their property without fear of reprisal from authorities. Given the amount of farmers and ranchers on the border, illegals would heavily think twice about trying to cross as they would likely get killed.

Here is the dilemma though. I would say the majority of these immigrants WANT desperately to be US citizens, but cannot afford the process of legal immigration. Again, these are hard working people looking for jobs and a better life, truly the stuff our country was founded upon. I think we can all agree we all WANT that. Problem is, if they are illegal they drain social resources, and work for less money thereby driving down labor and employment costs, which is why so many people lose jobs to illegals. If they were legal they would work for more as they are entitled to, would pay taxes, create local markets, boost existing ones, and truly benefit themselves and the country. Then we have those that are legal that utterly abuse the system, hate their country and anyone not like them, and rapidly embrace any propaganda the mainstream media feeds to them.

Example:

I was talking to a good friend last night regarding the state of the economy, Obama's policies, and congress. He was a die hard liberal, weed smoking, anti-state government citizen. I asked him a series of questions regarding recent legislation, Obama's domestic policies, the war, and the expansion of social programs. Within 30 MINUTES he was amazed and said, "wow, holy crap I guess I am really a conservative!" AMAZING The things he believed in and wanted for the country were of conservative origin, but from the news outlets he watched and the propaganda he was filled with he honestly BELIEVED it was liberal and demcratic policy!!!! UNREAL!!!! So he was against the immagration law in Arizona passionately, and within 30 minutes of fact dropping, he was entirely for it.

I am seriously thinking about going into politics because the amount of BS we are fed is sickening.

IMO Ron Paul is one of the few, if not only, true American politicians left with common sense and goal of representing the people. But that is off topic.

So in regards to the Arizona bill, it has the right concept, but again the wrong method of execution.

Oh and it is the RIGHT of the STATE to implement such a law, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks of it; that is the beauty of our system where states have final authority over their land. Illegals are not protected by the civil rights act, so FED butt out!!!

[edi

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Mikemp44]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by thepathoverseer
Don't you know, this issue could lead to civil war.



It would be hilarious if Mexico had to move into Arizona to quell the violence on its northern border.


That would be an act of war and we would destroy mexico.

Jaden



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by thepathoverseer
 


If it's a Civil war to shed this corrupt, evil and tyrannical government, then so be it. There will be death and bloodshed, something we should avoid when at all possible, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the evils being done in Washington.


Please give us a few examples of these "evils." Oh, and some examples of tyranny would be lovely.

If you didn't have a problem with habeas corpus being ignored, illegal wiretaps and torture starting around 2001, then I don't think you know what "evil" actually is.


Just because you are as partisan as can be doesn't mean others are. I for one, have never defended the patriot act, the formation of homeland security, the formation of the TSA etc....

Jaden



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by riffraff
So when's the revolution? I can think of no higher honor than to be the first casualty in the restoration of the former greatest country on earth


There is a LEGION of Internet Tough Guys ahead of you. But I can state with complete confidence that none of you will actually put your life on the line for what you say you believe in.

101st Fighting Keyboarders, we salute you.



[edit on 5/21/10 by mothershipzeta]


You keep thinking that..... Just because you are a spineless weasel, don't pretend to project that on to others.....lol....

Jaden



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
There is some hypocrisy here I would like to address.
It seems progressives/democrats are screaming over this AZ. bill. Why?
1. It gives the government too much power to arbitrarily target a person because of their race?
2. People should be able to come and go as they wish? Across borders?

Okay, I agree.
Really.

However, WHO exactly asked for BIG GOVERNMENT? Not the true conservatives or libertarians. It was the liberals/social democrats that made all of these promises of social justice (if you just give us the power to do so), no matter which party they clothed themselves in. Providing all of these benefits at the cost of other more productive people is at the root of all of this.
If they were coming here just for the opportunity to work, no problem.

So, let's end all welfare and social security. Eliminate all of these redundant government oversight agencies that restrict the freedom of individuals to pursue their aspirations.

The hypocrisy is evident. YOU guys asked for all of this government intervention, but YOU want to say WHO gets dicked with, and WHO "we" leave alone.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
There is some hypocrisy here I would like to address.
It seems progressives/democrats are screaming over this AZ. bill.
However, WHO exactly asked for BIG GOVERNMENT?


Just a note...Your premise is based on partisan rhetoric and false.

Democrats do not want "Big Government".

They want a government that does what it should.

Even conservatives concede that thier last bout of power resulted in a huge expansion of government.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11


Democrats do not want "Big Government".

They want a government that does what it should.



That made me spit out my food,


What do you call the ever reaching arm of the Government in General Motors, which allowed Unions to take over that company?

What about the governments reach in Housing Loans with Freddie and Fannie, which led to the housing bubble guaranteeing unqualified people with loans...now Freddie & Fannie own majority of the Home Loans?

What about the HCR bill? Wait let me guess, you don't even know whats in it as you believe the dems are not wanting to take over the Health and Insurance industry so they can choose if one gets to live or die..


In that same HCR bill..the Feds now control all Student Loan Market, which used to employ 2500 people in my neck of the woods...all unemployed now.

So the Dems want a small government? Did you know that under Obama, Federal and Government jobs have increased in Pay and Hiring over any other administration to date?.......with more bureaucracies opening up as citizens need to be controlled, more people will be hired to force the will of the government.

Wake up and stop being a puppet for government takeover....unless you yourself are benefiting from this, then people like the OP and me will always be in your way.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
My first post, unfortunately made in a negative light, nonetheless should be heard.

Freedom.
What is it? To me freedom means the ability to go where i want, do what i want and say what i want as long as where i go doesnt break the laws of the land, what i want isn't illegal, and what i say is not racist or prejudice.

Sure, that's a limited version of freedom, but it works and generally even with these restrictions i feel very free as a Canadian.

However...
This land is not my land, or your land, or the natives land. All this land on the world belongs to the people. People should have the right to leave a place that isn't providing for them or doesn't allow to provide for themselves and go someplace better. Every human being deserves this right from birth.

Who are we to dictate to any human where they can live, eat, sleep, and think? Who are we to dictate a human seeking asylum, freedom, shelter, food, peace, etc., that they should not be afforded those freedoms?

Is this the world we want to live in? Where we segregate races to their own lands, we have no tolerance of immigration, that we think its ok to own something we did not create and merely inhereted?

Its sad, this world, this people. Why can't men and women of this world stand for something better? Why does anyone in any country feel a sense of entitlement? No one in this generation or even the last built these countries, they merely complained about their own laws and taxes, berated their own officials, and maintained a status quo. I am sure those who established and built countries of freedom did it so every man, woman and child can be afforded basic human dignity, they did not consider immigration and its ill effects on the psyche, why? Because they wanted true freedom in every sense of the word. That was the entitlement they felt back then which motivated their actions, now this generation and many before us decide its time to be dictators and determine who "deserves" to immigrate and who doesn't and it makes me sick to see it.

OP, while i respect your opinion, i disagree with it on that basis. I will not refuse a hungry person entry into my country, i will feed him, teach him how to feed himself, teach him how to work and pay his taxes, so they can become a contributor. This is a positive approach that can fatten the pockets of the governments from recieving more taxes, instead, its gustapo time, no entitlement for anyone but those already here. Yet, no god, no being, nothing in this universe gave any one human, or even several entitlement over lands, but for some reason you believe your worthy of it.

I say to you, what makes you worthy (personally or as a government entity) of that entitlement? Winning Wars? Killing off Native Tribes? The fact you can create laws? Id love to know what entitles Americans, Canadians, or any nationality of any country that they own the land they reside in and can/should control who gets to be on it.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I'm not sure but hasn't all of this been settled before?

Mueler v. Mena U.S. Supreme Court

I mean the court ruled 9-0 that and I quote:

The Court further held that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.

So according to this, since the Arizona law specifically requires reasonable suspicion to question immigration status, the SC found no reasonable suspicion is required to ask for immigration status.

I'm really having a hard time seeing what is wrong with Arizona's law. Seems they took racial profiling into consideration, while the Fed version doesn't, nor does the SC, but Arizonians are called racsist..?

Am I not seeing something here?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
From the OP;



You have shamed your people, your states, and your country with your prepubescent show of America bashing.


I heard of this "America Bashing" -- about every time we called Bush a war-monger, or a liar about his reasons for war, or every time some Crony corporation got a huge windfall of tax dollars.

Arizona is creating a huge problem out of a relatively minor one (illegal employment) by alienating a lot of people in their state and around "America." Lot's of Arizonan's and people of a certain point of view see no problem in it and wonder "what is the big deal." They also see it as a "Federal Law" though forgetting that it's completely against the 4th amendment to force people to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

That Latin Americans are not the only immigrants here, and that we will have other groups who "cause crime" regardless of all the anecdotes that make headlines showing that, rather than Muslim's, Negros or insert the next group -- it's Mexicans who create crime in the USA. So if Arizona cannot deal with their little problem, by treating crime as crime and act so damn ignorant about profiling -- well, this is going to become a bigger problem.

Every time the Whiney right wing bullies get someone to stand up to them -- that group of people are "America bashing." Thin-skinned little petulant babies the lot of you. You stand for nothing but yourselves and you were just lucky enough to be born in a country where someone else fought for the RIGHTS you deny others. If you took me and a few thousand people like me and deported us -- well, then we'd push for justice and fairness wherever we were forced to live, and you would be living in a country that singles out people with less power. Congratulations: you stand against everything that once made America great, and when called on it, complain that America is going to be brought lower by pointing this out.

Standing up for the little guy is eventually standing up for all of us. Mexican's, illegal or not, will become great Americans if they are not treated like criminals. We are every one of us, related to some criminal bastard who got kicked out of all the GOOD places on the planet. America is only great when we are good.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
So, did you also send a letter to Republicans in the Congress when they authorized Bush 2 to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and when Republicans allowed a budget surplus to be frittered away on wars and corporate hand-outs?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyR
I'm not sure but hasn't all of this been settled before?

Mueler v. Mena U.S. Supreme Court

I mean the court ruled 9-0 that and I quote:

The Court further held that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.

So according to this, since the Arizona law specifically requires reasonable suspicion to question immigration status, the SC found no reasonable suspicion is required to ask for immigration status.

I'm really having a hard time seeing what is wrong with Arizona's law. Seems they took racial profiling into consideration, while the Fed version doesn't, nor does the SC, but Arizonians are called racsist..?

Am I not seeing something here?


When someone is DETAINED as a suspect in a criminal act -- it's a LOT different than asking someone who has done nothing wrong to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT.

When inevitably, this law is shown as unconstitutional -- and stupid, I'm sure the people "so concerned with law" will find another excuse to be racist pricks. For some reason, the same people who are "concerned" and "not racists" always have a problem with not profiling Muslims, and not checking passports, and birth certificates of people with the wrong color. I know it's a generalization, but these "concerned people" always fit the profile of Archie Bunker.

If Latin Americans can get harassed, then people in suits who look like they've got money need to have their bank accounts inspected in case they were involved in this "theft" we call Leveraged Buyouts and Credit Default Swaps. The economic impact of illegal immigrants on our Social System is far outweighed by merely the bonuses the robber barons have paid themselves.

You guys are fighting over crumbs and the people who set you up to do it (like the Governor of Arizona), are laughing. If Employers were not using Illegals and making a profit by lowering your wages -- they would NOT be here, and you can use all the damn anecdotes of "oh, they can't know without proper ID" -- but the fact remains, it's pretty dang easy to know if your company is SAVING MONEY by not paying Social Security taxes.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LibertyLover
So, did you also send a letter to Republicans in the Congress when they authorized Bush 2 to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and when Republicans allowed a budget surplus to be frittered away on wars and corporate hand-outs?


It was a very "reasonable concern" about Saddam Hussein, because the News Media showed a lot of video of foreign looking folks doing things on monkey bars that looked a lot like terrorist training. What country, or when it was taken, doesn't really matter. People know everything they need to know about Iraq by the News Media that is so dang Liberal.

/Sarcasm

If the world acted like Bush. India would have invaded the USA for the US citizen who went to their country to blow something up. Or Hugo Chavez would launch a Cruise missile at Texas because the CIA has tried to kill him 3 times. Maybe a few more Latin countries could complain of terrorist sponsorship because the Death Squads used by Chiquita Banana were trained in the School of the Americas in Florida.

Face it, for corporations, our CIA and military sponsor terrorism all over the world. What do you call it when a branch of Al Qaeda is funded by the USA in Iran to try and destabilize their country?

Oh, I'm sorry -- I'm America-bashing. I can't notice the hypocrisy and I've got to repeat; "They hate us for our freedoms." Or maybe, because they are desperately poor, and lost a family member to one of our bombs -- who knows?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepathoverseer

Originally posted by ToToo
As a Democrat, I must say that I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY 100% with the OP on this.

Arizona IS doing the right thing, and I think anyone that disagrees with what Arizona is doing is absolutely 100% WRONG. Repeat - 100% WRONG!!!

GOOD JOB ARIZONA, YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING!!!!!

[edit on 20-5-2010 by ToToo]



Don't you know, this issue could lead to civil war.


Think people Think!


Sometimes, sadly but, sometimes, an ass whipping is the only thing that gets the job done.
Am I a violent seeking man? No not at all.
Yet this pussyfooting around trying to make everyone happy as they focus on garbage issues and greed while real problems go unaddressed and unsolved has to end.
If theyre truly concerned and focused on living up to their job titles and the responsibilties involved, theyd realized the popularity contests theyre trying to win, would be won by representing their citizens and not some other nations leaders.
Ball-less and brainless is what I see, not a leader, a true leader, in the entire bunch.
But you watch as the villification continues, it wont become civil war,
there HAS to be a huge pre planned distraction just waiting on the horizon,
HARD RESET coming up!






posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by maybereal11


Democrats do not want "Big Government".

They want a government that does what it should.



That made me spit out my food,


What do you call the ever reaching arm of the Government in General Motors, which allowed Unions to take over that company?


A Bush Initiative...




December 20th, 2008
U.S. Throws Lifeline to Detroit

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said it would lend $17.4 billion to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC,

online.wsj.com...

I bolded the date for you since you seem to be challenged in that area.


What about the governments reach in Housing Loans with Freddie and Fannie, which led to the housing bubble guaranteeing unqualified people with loans...now Freddie & Fannie own majority of the Home Loans?


Or the deregulation of the financial industry allowing for exotic synthetic derivatives based on pools of crappy loans?

Again you seem to be challenged on the time issue, assigning an economic collapse that occured during a GOP administration to Democrats.



What about the HCR bill?


A good example of where the Fed Gov. should be, though I would have preferred a bill less compromised by the interests of the insurance industry/big pharma and the GOP that lovingly defended them.



In that same HCR bill..the Feds now control all Student Loan Market, which used to employ 2500 people in my neck of the woods...all unemployed now.


How silly. Anyone can make student loans, what you are bemoaning is that student loans via government are no longer administered by private firms who jack up the rates and bleed students to pay thier crazy compensation packages...all the while having the government back the debt.
. ...Ironic given the case you are trying to make concerning government and private industry.



So the Dems want a small government? Did you know that under Obama, Federal and Government jobs have increased in Pay and Hiring over any other administration to date?........


Source...please skip the obviously bias sites.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Milleresque
 


I am confused here. I thought that was pretty much what built this country with its borders, Mothers and fathers risking their lives, many populating the very shallow graves you speak of in order to ensure that their children and their children et al; would have a place to live free and grow. A place where they would have the freedoms to succeed or fail by their own hands. A “Nation defined by the ideals and principles of self-worth and personal freedom. Were it not for the “UTTERLY IRRELEVANT...UTTERLY POINTLESS...SERVE NO PURPOSE WHATSOVER AD NAUSEUM.” ,Borders that define that nation, then just where would these people go? They would be forced to create within their own defined area, a place where opportunity, growth,and freedom existed. In other words they would create their own nation, with defined borders and ideals.

“When immigration represented the BEST method of recruit ion and employment your nation had ever seen then we might agree on a few things.”

Just where were these people immigrating to? Why? They were coming here because this nation, defined by its borders, represented and upheld values that they found desirable, as opposed to other Nations with defined borders whos values were different. We welcomed them with open arms, but also with the caveat that by wishing to define yourself as an American you were accepting the ideals, laws, customs, and defining characteristics which were unique to that defined area. The fact that America encouraged immigration in no way precludes its need or right to limit that immigration based solely upon its own defined limits.

It is the nature of man to define himself and his place within a group.
Trying to argue that borders should be non existent is akin to saying that sport teams should not exist, or that political parties should be all inclusive with no definable boundaries or characteristics.
People need a sense of belonging, something that defines them. The founders knew this and wove that very idea in the fabric of the constitution. Many states, with diverse ideas held together by common ideals through a small central government. I would think that the idea of borders would follow naturally with the lefts ideas of Diversity. You could erase all the lines of borders on a map, and people would still find a way to separate themselves into distinct groups based on geography, ethnicity, culture, (insert any defining adjective here).
Even in nature we find the concept of borders and group identification. Wolf packs prides of lions, territorial hunters. As an abstract, purely academic, argument one may argue the concept of a world without borders. In reality, the existence of borders is a natural consequence of mans existence. That being the case, the argument thus turns to how those borders are defined, how they are enforced, and to what extent they serve to aid mankind in its vast diversity.
Be it Muslim or Jew, Yankee fan or Mets fan, American or Mexican, man has, does, and will define himself within a set of borders. Your argument is moot.


With that being said I must take a moment here to state that this is way off the topic of this thread.



[edit on 5/21/2010 by Phedreus]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phedreus
 


I agree 99% with you. The 1% disagreement is of the GOP comment. Those democrats who applauded have no respect for the rule of law. This is not a D/R issue, but a legal issue.

Well said.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join