How did this not get publicized???

[Cheech]

Yes and yes. Yes I am active trying to change the political climate, and i'm active in a few different groups.

Citation, please.

And yes I'm asking questions and building up impotent rage.

That was more what I was expecting.

How do you change something that big and powerful and established and entrenched? Most of America wanted financial reform a better (more direct) stimulus package, and a better health care plan. Yet, big businesses and well heeled advocacy groups lobbied and completely neutered any real change to the system. The government blatantly ignored the will of the people; our representatives don't care/ don't listen. So option 1,: activisim and demanding change from our leaders clearly doesn't work.

OK. I would ask for references on "most of America" (is that like Palin's "Real America"?), but I understand that would open a whole 'nother thing. You get a pass, this time.

Secondly, if the two established parties don't put their weight behind a candidate, no one hears about them! The paperwork and costs to file as an independent candidate are ridiculous. You need a political party just to begin the process of getting elected. So working from within the system is impossible to get started.

Someone tell that to Jesse Ventura (MN) and Angus King (Maine). Both elected as governor independents in the last 20 years.

Option 3 of course is to revolt/rebel. Save for the fact that it would be just me, unarmed, trying to rebel. Not a choice favorite.

No, I'm pretty sure there are small armies of people in Montana who would relish the chance.

Show me where to start; I know what to do once I get there.

Thought you'd never ask. Try to improve the political discourse in this country. Do you really think we're going to advance as a nation and as a society when we have a couple hundred thousand people believing some guy who scribbles nonsense on a chalkboard on national television, or some guy who spews complete garbage like "oil spills are natural and healthy for the environment, it will take care of itself", and decries personal responsibility and defense of marriage while he's been caught with illicit drugs at least 3 times and been married 4?

::steps down from soap box::

Sorry about that

No worries at all.

[chevysoldier]

or some guy who spews complete garbage like "oil spills are natural and healthy for the environment, it will take care of itself", l.

Well duh. The oil comes from the earth so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Actually a hurricane needs to come in. It would displace the oil so thin it wouldn't matter. That'd be a better clean up than we could ever imagine doing within a reasonable cost.

[John]

Someone tell that to Jesse Ventura (MN) and Angus King (Maine). Both elected as governor independents in the last 20 years.

dude, ventura has all that predator money.

[Cheech]

Eh, I could care less. The fact that he was here illegally trumps all. Stay in your own country unless you want to come here legally and contribute to society. IMO, anyone that inappropriately touches children should get the same, and have it televised as well. This sick fuck is one reason I about had a heart attack when I heard I was having a daughter.

No, the fact that he was in here illegally doesn't trump all. Innocent until proven guilty, man. For a bunch of people who claim to cherish the Constitution, it amazes me how quickly everyone dismisses it when it doesn't fit their world-view.

Until the laws are changed, if you are caught breaking the law inside of United States territory, you are tried and convicted under the Constitution of the United States. I think that's 5th grade civics class.

[Cheech]

dude, ventura has all that predator money.

that's probably why he's not the governor anymore, he doesn't have time to lead.

[Cheech]

Well duh. The oil comes from the earth so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Actually a hurricane needs to come in. It would displace the oil so thin it wouldn't matter. That'd be a better clean up than we could ever imagine doing within a reasonable cost.

No. The waves generated by the hurricanes alone would render the booms completely useless, and since most of the boom being put up now was done so improperly (boom is supposed to be V-shaped with some sort of reservoir at the apex, not straight parallel to the coast), they would have to disconnect from the containment cap so all the thousands of barrels they are collecting currently would be released for a week or so as the ships retreat then reconnect. Instead of cleaning up a 500sq. mile (numbers made up) area, you'll then have a 900sq. mile area, including all the oil that washed up WAY far inland due to the storm surge.

[cg2112]

No, the fact that he was in here illegally doesn't trump all. Innocent until proven guilty, man. For a bunch of people who claim to cherish the Constitution, it amazes me how quickly everyone dismisses it when it doesn't fit their world-view.

Until the laws are changed, if you are caught breaking the law inside of United States territory, you are tried and convicted under the Constitution of the United States. I think that's 5th grade civics class.

I agree. I'm all for making sure that people are here legally, but those who are here illegally are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as the rest of us.

Furthermore, being here illegally shouldn't result in being beaten into retardation.

[chevysoldier]

No. The waves generated by the hurricanes alone would render the booms completely useless, and since most of the boom being put up now was done so improperly (boom is supposed to be V-shaped with some sort of reservoir at the apex, not straight parallel to the coast), they would have to disconnect from the containment cap so all the thousands of barrels they are collecting currently would be released for a week or so as the ships retreat then reconnect. Instead of cleaning up a 500sq. mile (numbers made up) area, you'll then have a 900sq. mile area, including all the oil that washed up WAY far inland due to the storm surge.

No kidding the booms would become useless in a hurricane, I never said they wouldn't.

There has been one other similar spill in the Gulf. In 1979 about 140 million gallons of oil poured into the water off the coast of Mexico after a drilling rig blowout. A hurricane disrupted efforts to cap that well but the storm also dispersed the oil, diminishing its impact. Forecasters say predicting a hurricane's impact is a guessing game.

[InyaAzz]

No, the fact that he was in here illegally doesn't trump all. Innocent until proven guilty, man. For a bunch of people who claim to cherish the Constitution, it amazes me how quickly everyone dismisses it when it doesn't fit their world-view.

Until the laws are changed, if you are caught breaking the law inside of United States territory, you are tried and convicted under the Constitution of the United States. I think that's 5th grade civics class.

I agree. I'm all for making sure that people are here legally, but those who are here illegally are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as the rest of us.

Furthermore, being here illegally shouldn't result in being beaten into retardation.

Exactly.

People are quick to ignore the Constitution when it serves there purposes....but then let the President they didn't vote for, or some politician says something they don't like, and then they break out their laminated copy of the Constitution they carry in their wallets and purses.

You can't have it both ways.

And yeah...it DOES matter that there is more to the story. Making a judgment about anything without knowing all of the facts...or caring about all of the facts..is ignorance at its best.

[chevysoldier]

So what you guys are saying is the illegals are still "the people of the United States of America"?

[InyaAzz]

Are you saying that the Supreme Court is wrong?

"In Wong Wing v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), the Supreme Court stated (in citing a

previous case and affirming 14th Amendment rights):

“The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of

citizens. It says: '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 law.' These provisions are universal in their application to

all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of

race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of

the protection of equal laws.' Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth

amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the

United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments,

and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous

crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of

life, liberty, or property without due process of law. “

[chevysoldier]

Here you speak in generalities of the Constitution.

People are quick to ignore the Constitution when it serves there purposes....but then let the President they didn't vote for, or some politician says something they don't like, and then they break out their laminated copy of the Constitution they carry in their wallets and purses.

You can't have it both ways.

Here you speak only of the 14th in relation to illegals.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court is wrong?

"In Wong Wing v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), the Supreme Court stated (in citing a

previous case and affirming 14th Amendment rights):

“The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of

citizens. It says: '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 law.' These provisions are universal in their application to

all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of

race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of

the protection of equal laws.' Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth

amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the

United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments,

and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous

crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of

life, liberty, or property without due process of law. “

I asked if illegals were "the people" then you brought up the 14th "for any person" showing me they aren't. that is the only section that applies to them.

Edited July 15, 2010 by chevysoldier

[InyaAzz]

And?

[chevysoldier]

And?

Let me rephrase is after work. I can't concentrate on what I want to say.

I really need to avoid threads like this while I am at work.

[InyaAzz]

I plan on beating illegals when I get off of work, so I'll be too busy to respond.

[CattaniAFJ]

No, the fact that he was in here illegally doesn't trump all. Innocent until proven guilty, man. For a bunch of people who claim to cherish the Constitution, it amazes me how quickly everyone dismisses it when it doesn't fit their world-view.

Until the laws are changed, if you are caught breaking the law inside of United States territory, you are tried and convicted under the Constitution of the United States. I think that's 5th grade civics class.

I think the Constitution shouldn't apply to anyone not a US citizen.

I also think you're a condescending prick. Fuck you and keep the smart ass "5th grade civics class" shit to yourself, Oh-High-And-Mighty-One.

[Disclaimer]

^---- The English Major has spoken!

(How's that for condescending? lulz)

[Cheech]

I think the Constitution shouldn't apply to anyone not a US citizen.

I also think you're a condescending prick. Fuck you and keep the smart ass "5th grade civics class" shit to yourself, Oh-High-And-Mighty-One.

I think I should be able to have a three-way with Scarlett Johansson and Rachel Nichols on demand. That doesn't make it the law, and it doesn't mean I can send forth the police to round their tight little asses over. This is what I'm talking about concerning the erosion of political discourse. Just because you believe something should be so doesn't make it so, even if you see it parroted on Fox News, and Hannity, and Beck, over and over again. Ignorance, or willful misinterpretation, is no excuse. While it's true that it's your inalienable right to bitch about the way the laws are worded or applied, don't get all butthurt when someone corrects you, especially since the part you were wrong about is taught in elementary school.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me because I'm right.

Respectfully,

Cheech "The Prez...idential Hammer" Babaganoosh

[CattaniAFJ]

I think I should be able to have a three-way with Scarlett Johansson and Rachel Nichols on demand. That doesn't make it the law, and it doesn't mean I can send forth the police to round their tight little asses over. This is what I'm talking about concerning the erosion of political discourse. Just because you believe something should be so doesn't make it so, even if you see it parroted on Fox News, and Hannity, and Beck, over and over again. Ignorance, or willful misinterpretation, is no excuse. While it's true that it's your inalienable right to bitch about the way the laws are worded or applied, don't get all butthurt when someone corrects you, especially since the part you were wrong about is taught in elementary school.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me because I'm right.

Respectfully,

Cheech "The Prez...idential Hammer" Babaganoosh

You're entitled to your opinion, just not entitled to be a fucking asshole about it.

Oh yeah, I also would like a threeway involving Scarlett, but the third would be Megan Fox.

[Cheech]

You're entitled to your opinion, just not entitled to be a fucking asshole about it.

Oh yeah, I also would like a threeway involving Scarlett, but the third would be Megan Fox.

You can keep Fox. You keep your grimy dumber-than-a-fif-grader mitts off Scarlett.

[jmwildi]

I agree. I'm all for making sure that people are here legally, but those who are here illegally are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as the rest of us.

Furthermore, being here illegally shouldn't result in being beaten into retardation.

If a person does the crime on US soil then the same Constitutional rights we have as citizens apply to non-citizens whether they're illegals or vacationers from the Netherlands with a tourist visa. That being said, i agree that just being here illegally shouldn't result in being beaten to retardation. Being here illegally should result in being deported but that seems to be one of the little hic-ups in our country's imigration policy. An adult beating or abusing a child, sexually or otherwise, is what should result in a swift ass kicking, by convicts in prison or some up-standing civic minded citizen. I will say though that it sounds like the prison officials were partly to blame by turning a blind eye. On the flip side, no matter how locked down a prison is, convicts will find a way to put a hurting to someone if they really want to.

[CattaniAFJ]

+1 to everything IP says! You are my idol now.

[Jcarlson]

Reverse the roles - an American get his ass kicked in a Mexican prison. No fuckin way would there be a settlement.

[psyco1]

I say this...

If you are not a citizen of this fine nation' date=' and you break one of our laws (no matter how minor/severe) you should be given 2 choices.

1. We send you home, either by plane/parachute or raft/life preserver, at no cost to you. SRSLY.. consider it a farewell gift.

2. We shoot you in the face on sight.

And just because I'm a proud American fuck.. If you happen to be an Islamo-baddy, (not just a regular-old Muslim) we'll shoot you with an UZI, filled with bull-nosed 9mm dipped in pigs' blood.[/quote']

Fuck it, let's do it for the citizens too.

[Cheech]

Reverse the roles - an American get his ass kicked in a Mexican prison. No fuckin way would there be a settlement.

Mexico is a sovereign nation with it's own set of laws. What are you trying to say?