OT – Illegal’s, Arizona, and Obama…

[Coronita]

Hijack

Holy fvcking shit… What’s the world coming to?

Obama supporting technology and STEM ? Wow… Hmmm, finally something positive…..

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/15/obama.education.initiative/index.html?hpt=T2

Washington (CNN) — President Barack Obama on Thursday announced a new initiative led by the top executives of major U.S. corporations that seeks to improve education in science, technology, engineering and math.

Personally, I would have picked CEO that weren’t from tech company dinosaurs that are partly on their way to extinction (like Kodak and Xerox, which I hope is not symbolic of the future of innovation here in the U.S., lol)…but I’ll give credit for at least paying lip service to this idea…

End Hijack…

Oh give it up folks. Government is government is government. Same masters, different spenders…. Now where’s my credit card so I can order some crap from Amazon……..

[Jim Jones]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.

[Eugene]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Eugene]

We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. [/quote]

Exactly. I’m perfectly happy to wait for this to play out at the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

I’d bet even money that the Supreme Court will vote along party lines, as they did numerous times in the past on issues of this kind (shows how independent they are … separation of powers my foot). Since the Court is currently 5:4 leaning conservative, the question that will decide the matter is not whether the law IS unconstitutional (we’ll never really know), but rather, whether the case will make it to SCOTUS before one of the five conservative judges retires and is replaced by Obama with a liberal judge. And the oldest conservative judge on the Court right now is “only” 74.

[Eugene]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Eugene]

We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. [/quote]

Exactly. I’m perfectly happy to wait for this to play out at the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

I’d bet even money that the Supreme Court will vote along party lines, as they did numerous times in the past on issues of this kind (shows how independent they are … separation of powers my foot). Since the Court is currently 5:4 leaning conservative, the question that will decide the matter is not whether the law IS unconstitutional (we’ll never really know), but rather, whether the case will make it to SCOTUS before one of the five conservative judges retires and is replaced by Obama with a liberal judge. And the oldest conservative judge on the Court right now is “only” 74.

[Eugene]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Eugene]

We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. [/quote]

Exactly. I’m perfectly happy to wait for this to play out at the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

I’d bet even money that the Supreme Court will vote along party lines, as they did numerous times in the past on issues of this kind (shows how independent they are … separation of powers my foot). Since the Court is currently 5:4 leaning conservative, the question that will decide the matter is not whether the law IS unconstitutional (we’ll never really know), but rather, whether the case will make it to SCOTUS before one of the five conservative judges retires and is replaced by Obama with a liberal judge. And the oldest conservative judge on the Court right now is “only” 74.

[Eugene]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Eugene]

We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. [/quote]

Exactly. I’m perfectly happy to wait for this to play out at the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

I’d bet even money that the Supreme Court will vote along party lines, as they did numerous times in the past on issues of this kind (shows how independent they are … separation of powers my foot). Since the Court is currently 5:4 leaning conservative, the question that will decide the matter is not whether the law IS unconstitutional (we’ll never really know), but rather, whether the case will make it to SCOTUS before one of the five conservative judges retires and is replaced by Obama with a liberal judge. And the oldest conservative judge on the Court right now is “only” 74.

[Eugene]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Eugene]

We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. [/quote]

Exactly. I’m perfectly happy to wait for this to play out at the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

I’d bet even money that the Supreme Court will vote along party lines, as they did numerous times in the past on issues of this kind (shows how independent they are … separation of powers my foot). Since the Court is currently 5:4 leaning conservative, the question that will decide the matter is not whether the law IS unconstitutional (we’ll never really know), but rather, whether the case will make it to SCOTUS before one of the five conservative judges retires and is replaced by Obama with a liberal judge. And the oldest conservative judge on the Court right now is “only” 74.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.[/quote]

I agree. You had to go to that card in just the third post?

Extra credit though for attempting to squeak it in parenthetically and not using the common abbreviation for the party name.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.[/quote]

I agree. You had to go to that card in just the third post?

Extra credit though for attempting to squeak it in parenthetically and not using the common abbreviation for the party name.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.[/quote]

I agree. You had to go to that card in just the third post?

Extra credit though for attempting to squeak it in parenthetically and not using the common abbreviation for the party name.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=meadandale][quote=Diego Mamani]It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)[/quote]

According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.[/quote]

I am not so sure Godwin thought his proof would show up so early in what should be a rational discussion.[/quote]

I agree. You had to go to that card in just the third post?

Extra credit though for attempting to squeak it in parenthetically and not using the common abbreviation for the party name.

[Author]

Posts