USA Politics

1010183_485725301508495_1975071782_n.jpg
 
I do not think it is bad ... not sure how true the story. I think the general gist is that the US would take in some refugees from the war. What is bad, IMO, is that Obama is arming the rebels... not so much that he is arming the, but that if he was going to do this, it would have made a much bigger difference earlier and that arming the opposition is a pretty weak response for Syria crossing the red line of using Chemical Weapons.

But taking in some refugees is probably a good thing, it will help those people out and I think the more Syrians and Middle Eastern descent that come here will see that the US is not the Great Satan and let people at home know that. Obviously we should be careful to not let radicals/criminals in and have some process to filter them out
 
One should keep in mind that the Syrian opposition is a rather diverse bunch of people ... and some potential governments that could be formed would no doubt be worse than Assad's as well. I don't know what the balance of power is like between the various opposition groups, but among them are radical Islamists. If they would end up as the group in power, the Syrian population could be stuck with a regime like the one in Saudi Arabia. Not a nice thought. And despite the US seeing Saudi-Arabia as an ally in the Middle East, I doubt the US government would like another regime of the same kind in the region.

If the US Government decides to support the opposition with weapons, they have to be very careful to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands.
 
I am not sure there is any realistic regime that would be great .. though Saudi Arabia would be preferable to a harder line Islamist regime, it is not too ideal ... the problem is from the US standpoint, Obama threw down the "Red Line" so now we have to do something .. .but he has done the most minimal something possible, which is probably the worst possible thing for the average Syrian.
 
Let's face it: If the US intervenes, the best they can hope for is installing some guy who is just like Assad, only pro-US.
 
Which I guess is better than anti-US Assad .. in any case, Obama committed us to do something. I am not seeing us sending arms and trainers there with the intention that those were are supporting will lose.
 
Ugh. Not the birth certificate shit again. Can't they find a new conspiracy?
 
it would be nice if we had a good President :)

But even if it were true (and I do not think it is) that he was born outside of the country ... he has been elected twice (God we are a stupid country sometimes), he cannot run again ... what does it matter at this point.
 
The answer to both of our thoughts is do not nominate anyone from MA .. Kerry and Romney were total crap candidates
 
It looks like the immigration reform effort in the Senate was salvaged when an agreement was reached to spend more $ on border security (boots on the ground and finishing the border fence)

More and more I like how this is shaping up ... while I am generally against additional spending, I agree with it in this case ... this is an actual Constitutional duty of the federal government and in reality the only way legitimate reform can happen is if illegal methods of gaining entry are shut off as much as possible.,
 
The whole Mexico border fence and stricter border patrols thing? It's blatant racism and it disgusts me that the U.S. government continues to push on with it. Why are Mexicans so different from Canadians with whom the U.S. shares a border but somehow doesn't feel the need to fence off? Oh that's right, they tend to have darker skin and speak Spanish. :grumble:
 
It is not racism .. what is different between the border with Mexico and the border with Canada is that there are 11 million or so Mexicans living in the US illegally I doubt there are 11,000 Canadians in the US illegally.

Mexico has been talking about building a fence on their border with Guatamala (not sure if it has happened yet) and not one on the US border for the same reason
 
Important win for property rights in the Supreme Court today ... this kind of governmental abuse has been going on way too long. Gay Marriage decision will be tomorrow

n a major win for property rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court today in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District reversed a decision by the Florida Supreme Court and held that a state regulatory agency imposed “unconstitutional conditions” and “extortionate demands” on a property owner seeking a necessary building permit.
Writing for a divided 5-4 Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that the St. Johns River Water Management District violated the Constitution when it refused to grant Coy Koontz Sr. a building permit to commercially develop a small piece of land unless he first agreed to several conditions, including funding improvements to state-owned land located between 4.5 and 7 miles away. Charging that these conditions violated his rights under the 5th Amendment, which requires the government to pay just compensation when private property is taken for a public use, Koontz brought suit.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. “Extortionate demands of this sort frustrate the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits them,” wrote Justice Alito. “We have recognized that regardless of whether the government ultimately succeeds in pressuring someone into forfeiting a constitutional right,” he continued, “the unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them.”
Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan sided with the state regulators. The Court’s decision, she argued, “threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in States and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure, and would affirm the Florida Supreme Court’s decision.”
This is the third and final Takings Clause case of the current Supreme Court term, and it is the third victory for the property rights side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top