USA Politics

Travis The Dragon said:
By properly raised, I mean being raised by parents and not living on the street. And they could be dangerous because they haven't had parents there to teach them good values. They're probably not coming over here on the intent of causing trouble, but since they weren't properly raised and taught good values by parents, they are a potential risk.
Click to expand...

Having parents doesn't mean good values at all. Sure the kids on the streets are going to struggle and might do some petty theft to try and get by, but they will be grateful for everything and every chance anyone gives them. A large amount of younger people (that I've met certainly) are self entitled assholes who will do anything they think they can get away with. Having parents is not a garauntee kids will be anywhere near well behaved, there are plenty of bad parents about, who couldn't care less what their kids do.

I do agree though that illegal immigration is a bad thing, not just because I'm pretty sure had I chosen to do it I would've been sent home within a week >.> I would certainly rather Britain sorted its own problems (like those pesky Scots!) before taking on everyone elses too. So I agree that its a problem, but I think your reasoning for it being so is off the mark.

I guess though your heart, tears and prayers only apply if the kids are in another country :P
 
Ya, you do make some very good points CI. And it's not like we're hearing stories of these kids killing a bunch of people over here so it obviously isn't a problem. If something bad did come of it, then I would have a valid point, but it hasn't so far.
Crimson Idol said:
I guess though your heart, tears and prayers only apply if the kids are in another country :p
Click to expand...
Upon further thinking, I am very glad that these kids are off the street and in a better situation and will at least have a chance at a good future. :)
 
I understand your concerns with immigration, a country should look after itself primarily after all. I also don't get what the purpose of legal immigration systems are if illegal immigrants are often left alone (I saw a story a few years ago about someone who moved to the UK illegally, and after 7 years still had made no effort to learn English, had never worked, and lived entirely from benefits... wtf?). I just think you were focusing on the wrong aspect of this particular instance - the parents part.

They may not be off the streets yet, but if they have chosen to be on the streets in the US instead of their home country there is likely a reason for it - it won't be easy for them to have made that journey - so probably not better for the US, but better for those kids themselves.

It's all somewhat messy no matter how you look at it.
 
Excellent

House libertarians and liberals banded together for a surprise win in their fight against the secretive National Security Agency, securing support for new curbs on government spying a year after leaker Edward Snowden's disclosures about the bulk collection of millions of Americans' phone records.

The Republican-led House voted 293-123 late Thursday to add the limits to a $570 billion defense spending bill. The provision, which faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, would bar warrantless collection of personal online information and prohibit access for the NSA and CIA into commercial tech products.

Proponents of the measure described them as government "backdoors" that give intelligence agencies an opening to Americans' private data.

"The American people are sick of being spied on," said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who joined with libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats to push the measure.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, railed against "this dragnet spying on millions of Americans."

The House was expected to pass the defense bill Friday. It still must be reconciled with a still-to-be written Senate version.

In the showdown between privacy and security, the House earlier this year overwhelmingly passed the USA Freedom Act that would codify a proposal made in January by President Barack Obama, who said he wanted to end the NSA's practice of collecting and storing the "to and from" records of nearly every American landline telephone call under a program


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article586518.html#storylink=cpy
 
And sometimes foster parents love more (or give more love) to their kids than "blood" parents. I agree with you, having a parent doesn't mean anything by itself except a piece of paper with a name on it, and of course, biological traits.
 
Obama wins the vote ... as worst president since WWII

WASHINGTON — President Obama is No. 1, but not in a flattering way.

He’s the top pick for “worst president since World War II,” according to a poll of American voters released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn.

Mr. Obama came in first with 33 percent, followed by George W. Bush with 28 percent. Third, with 13 percent, was Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace 40 years ago next month.

Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” says Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll.


The top postwar presidents are Ronald Reagan (35 percent), Bill Clinton (18 percent), and John F. Kennedy (15 percent).

Of course, asking voters to rate the current president against his predecessors may not be fair. Sitting presidents face a daily barrage of challenges, and voters can be harsh, even when a president’s ability to fix a problem is limited. Typically, as soon as a president leaves office, his favorability rating gets a boost. And, historians say, one really should wait a few decades before ranking a president for the ages.
 
Let's talk about it in 40 years. We're only now starting to come to honest conclusions about Reagan's massive difficulties as president. What that poll says is that 33% of Americans have no idea what a bad president is.
 
It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Has a president ever had a lawsuit filed against them before?

From: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nst-obama-over-alleged-abuse-executive-power/
The House on Wednesday approved a highly contentious lawsuit against President Obama over his alleged abuse of executive power, teeing up an election-year legal battle sure to spill onto the midterm campaign trail.

The House backed the lawsuit resolution on a vote of 225-201, with all Democrats opposed.

Republicans say the lawsuit is necessary to keep the president in constitutional check, after he allegedly exceeded his authority with unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats branded the effort a political charade aimed at stirring up GOP voters for this fall's congressional elections. They also said it's an effort by top Republicans to mollify conservatives who want Obama to be impeached -- something House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he has no plans to do.

“We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans. Listen, it's all a scam, started by Democrats at the White House,” Boehner said Tuesday.

Republicans said their planned legal action was warranted because, they argue, Obama has violated his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. They say that instead, he has enforced laws as he wants to, dangerously shifting power to the presidency from Congress.

"The people's representatives will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness of this president," said Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo. "We will do whatever it takes to hold him and future occupants of the Oval Office accountable."

Democrats dismissed the proposed lawsuit as a legally groundless exercise that could end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees and other expenses. But they've tried linking the suit to impeachment talk by conservatives like former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and turning it into a fundraising device.

Democrats have sent pleas for contributions to their supporters warning that the GOP is out to impeach Obama and ruin his presidency. Using that pitch, Democrats raised $1 million Monday, according to the head of the House Democratic campaign organization, Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y.

The lawsuit will focus on how Obama has carried out his health care overhaul.

Republicans say Obama has illegally changed the law using executive actions. The White House and Democrats say he's acted legally and within the latitude he's empowered to use as chief executive.
Click to expand...
 
It's pretty ironic that these Republicans claim that policies such as Obamacare are counterproductive to the American people while they increase the number of uninsured people in their states to stop it and use good tax money for political obstacles like this lawsuit that will obviously go nowhere.
 
Speaking of a waste of money $830Mil for a site that still does not really work. This does not count millions on state sites (2 so far have just shut down), armies of people to manually process forms, or what will be spent to finish out the backend, not to mention all the miscalculated subsidies, the "you can keep your plan/doctor/every family will save $2500 lies.

The total will be well into the billions, just for the website.

What a bunch of incompetent fools we have for a government. I have worked on several IT projects that were as complex as this, I can promise they all worked a hell of a lot better and we had nowhere remotely close to 800 million dollars to do it.

Probe Exposes Flaws Behind Health Care Site Launch

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...th_care_site_launch_123515.html#ixzz393CHmhsV


After a months-long investigation, the Government Accountability Office found that the administration lacked "effective planning or oversight practices" for the development of HealthCare.gov, the portal for millions of uninsured Americans.

As a result the government incurred "significant cost increases, schedule slips and delayed system functionality," William Woods, a GAO contracting expert, said in testimony prepared for a hearing Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The GAO is the nonpartisan investigative agency of Congress.


Investigators found that the administration kept changing the contractors' marching orders for the HealthCare.gov website, creating widespread confusion and adding tens of millions of dollars in costs. Changes were ordered seemingly willy-nilly, including 40 times when government officials did not have the initial authority to incur additional costs.

The GAO concluded:

- Contractors were not given a coherent plan, and instead jumped around from issue to issue.

- The cost of a glitchy computerized sign-up system for consumers ballooned from $56 million to more than $209 million from September 2011 to February 2014. The cost of the electronic backroom for verifying applicants' information jumped from $30 million to almost $85 million.

- CMS, representing the administration, failed to follow up on how well the contractors performed.

- A third contract, for fixes to the website, grew from $91 million in January to $175 million as of last month.
 
I tend not to blame the contractors, unless the contractors were morons - which is possible, especially if the government pulled from the lowest possible bidders. In addition, it sounds like the people in the government in charge of this sort of thing simply didn't understand what a website is and how it works. Which is something that happens in every organization and government, especially ones ruled by old, out-of-touch people. It stinks.
 
This isn't actually political, but about recent US military history. National Geographic has a new 90-minute special "American War Generals". I saw it last night, and I highly recommend it for military history buffs.

Interviewed on the show about the last 50 years of US military history, mostly focused on Desert Storm onwards: Colin Power, Barry McCaffery, David Petreus, Stanley McChrystal and several other big-time US generals.

The full show isn't on youtube yet, but it can be obtained by other means. :innocent:

NG put 8 clips on youtube, here's a good sample:

Full youtube playlist, 8 short clips
 
Is anybody aware of what's going on with the schools here in Denver?

Just north of Denver proper lies Jefferson County, a suburb with the state's 2nd-largest school district. Last year, their non-partisan school board was taken over by right-wingers with an agenda. They've called for a new US History curriculum which emphasizes "patriotism and respect for authority" while calling for materal on civil disobedience and civil rights to be sharply reduced. Basically, it's a politically motivated curriculum which teaches groupthink and demonizes individualty.

Last Friday most of the high schools teachers took a personal day or called in sick. They had to close two high schools for lack of adults. An organized sick-out is illegal and the school board immediately started threatening to prosecute its own employees. So for the past two days, the students have walked out to save the teacher's jobs.

I don't mean the kids are taking a free day. They're on the streets protesting.
school-protest-at-arvada-west-from-rahel.jpg

Jeffco_students_walk_out_in_protest_2050650000_8354133_ver1.0_640_480.jpg


This is the kind of thing that makes me proud to be American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top