ng

Done

HK - I would absolutely *love* to run into someone in the jury pool who was present in the courtroom. I'm sure the lawyer will incorporate some of your thoughts! Not sure what state/district you're in, but some places pride themselves on rocket-docket strategies, where judges give very little leeway on jury selection.

HK and Diane, I agree. Jury service is a privilege. An important way to serve your community. It's also an interesting way to learn how parts of your community think about things. When I've served on juries I have met fascinating fellow jurors; always, in my experience, very nice folks. Perhaps I've just been lucky but our 'debates' were never heated, just opportunities to share differing vantages before reaching what, at least in retrospect, was an obvious conclusion.

Tuco, I see voting very differently. I could vote by mail but only did so when I was serving in the military and had no other way to do so.

First, voting early means that you might miss out on late breaking information. Sure, one has to be careful to avoid fictional propaganda, but that's true at any time.

Second, it is a community event. Voting in person means getting in line with neighbors of all political leanings who all have a common purpose, to perform a selection of representatives for all of us. I dress up and make sure that I thank the underpaid poll workers and honor the institution.

Representative democracy should, IMHO, not be rushed.

Tuco, posse comitatus prohibits federal interference in local law enforcement. Protecting our borders is a federal matter, as established when the Obama justice department sued Arizona over their immigration law in 2010. The court found on the basis of the supremacy of federal law that Arizona could not make it a state crime to be in the state illegally, they could not make it a state misdemeanor crime to work without proper authorization and they could not arrest people on probable cause for being here illegally.

Sending troops to the border to defend us from an invasion is well within the proper powers of the President as commander in chief of the military.

start

"Sending troops to the border to defend us from an invasion is well within the proper powers of the President as commander in chief of the military."

If there were an invasion, that statement would be relevant. As it is, what is coming is a bunch of people seeking asylum. What's illegal is turning them away without hearing their cases.

We'd be better off sending judges and lawyers and case workers to the border to help them get processed quickly and fairly, but it's been made clear that neither "quick" nor "fair" will apply in these cases.

No SJ, it is an invasion. Every sovereign nation has the right to control who enters their borders. This is an attempt to overwhelm the system. We do not have an obligation to help people get in. If these people need help, then it is the obligation of their own country and people to help them.

Here, here Samantha Joy. drwho, it seems like you learned nothing from WWII. Super shame on you. "No obligation to help people

'Ooops stupid space bar. Where was I? Oh right, telling drwho to return to his home planet, as he is clearly not a member of the HUMAN race. YOU, dude, are obliged to help anyone who needs help. That is everyone's obligation on this planet. It ought to be one of the things that separates us from 'lower' animals - compassion, but in this case lotsa animals are scoring higher than you. Law of Life: When a person asks for help, the appropriate response is to help them. (This, everyone should have learned in kindergarten.)

HK I don't see your point. Neither Honduras, Guatemala nor Mexico are in ruins from a war. Their problems stem from the disastrous policies of their own governments. Unlike WWII, we bear no responsibility for their plight.

Frankly, for the WWII analogy to work, we should first invade Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala and then set up a Marshall plan for them.

No, for the WWII analogy you should go shoot yourself in the head for letting 10's of millions knowingly die without lifting a finger for over 2 1/2 years. Okay, don't shoot yourself in the head, bit of an overstatement - no, I don't think so. Maybe step into a gas chamber. Or better yet, why don't you try surviving in a Siberian labor camp for 6 months like my father did - while the USA sat with it's head in the sand. It is my job in life to tell people: NEVER AGAIN.

As a human being, you bear the responsibility for others of the human race. Period. There is no muddying of that water.

HK I don't know what color the sky is in your world, but here in the real world we cannot afford to help everyone that needs help.

Of course not drwho, because we are too busy having reality shows about Kardasheeians, buying overpriced everything, basically not understanding what it is like to live without anything. Go back to your rose-colored world - you are useless.

HK - Using your logic, i.e. "As a human being, you bear the responsibility for others of the human race. Period. There is no muddying of that water." Then it is your fault drwho is "useless" because obviously you have not helped him. BTW - how many immigrants from Honduras do you have living with you in your home?

Our government was not designed to take care of its own citizens' every need. It was the government's job to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare (the enumerated powers granted to our government in the Constitution limit the ways in which the general welfare may be promoted). The idea was that free people could take care of themselves and their neighbors in need, not the government. That has worked very well here which is why so many people came and still want to come here. But since we have strayed from that vision and created a welfare state we must control our borders with much more vigor because the government will go broke trying to do what you think it should. If you want to throw open the borders, then lets go back to rugged individualism and self reliance. Let's get rid of the welfare state. Then everyone who wants the opportunity to make his own way in the life is welcomed.

KT thanks for confirming HK's assertion that I am useless :).

So am I - and proud of it

I don't enjoy being "used."

drwho - So you are outright just saying you're delusional - "That has worked very well here which is why so many people came and still want to come here." Wrong & Wrong. That's what's wrong with this country - people don't get it. Look around, things are NOT working out so well here. Add to that pathetic statement, that things still work here way better than other places. What makes you better? What makes you more entitled? Where you were born? When it comes time to dog eat dog, you're gonna get eaten because you don't understand the basic concept of desperation. People are desperate. They are hungry. They can't sustain themselves. No immigrant, ever, came here because they wanted that 2nd car, or larger TV.

KT -

KT - If you are going to resort to ridiculous one-on-one logic, then see your way out of the discussion. Of course I don't know even who drwho is, so how can I 'help' him, other than by words. As to my involvement with making society a better place, I'm all good. I do more than my part, to make up for those that don't believe they need to play a part. (Lots of those people think their obligation to others ends with that hour in church on Sundays.)

You know him well enough to label him "useless" and "delusional." I wish I had that type of power - to be able to know people's contribution to society and their mental state - without actually knowing them. I did not question whether you were a contributing member of society - your posts and passion indicate you are. I was just trying to ascertain if you are now or are willing to actually help the immigrants personally, e.g. use your personal resources to house, feed, tend to their medical needs, etc.

As far as me participating in the discussion, that is my choice alone. You are not the one who gets to dictate who does and does not participate.

HK you don't believe the US was ever the land of opportunity, where desperate people came and worked hard to feed and cloth themselves? We could be that country again if we got rid of the welfare state.

You know it is correct we do not have enough money to help everyone. We gave a huge tax cut again to help a very few. Dr.Who and anyone else who believes this is an invasion have finally proven that you are someone who will believe anything that is said by Right Wing propagandists. This is the "caravan" that is assembled every year. Why didn't he send the troops last year? They are coming here legally and under extreme conditions. They are grouping together to be safer and not have to pay coyotes that may kill them. I wonder how you would have felt if they were coming from Armenia during their Genocide? Or the Irish during their famine? How about what ever f'n immigrant stock you come from. It is because they are brown and Hair Furor is whipping up your latent or not racist fears.

Shut up about the "welfare state" too unless you really know what you are talking about. Most people on "welfare" government assistance have jobs.

Okay Tuco, the tax cut goes to the people to whom it belongs, they then have more money to use in helping others. Your problem is you think the government needs to pick their pockets in order to help people.

It is the constant cutting of taxes for those who do not contribute in any work that is hurting those who do.

So you want to redistribute the wealth. An immoral scheme that denies property rights.

B.S. The Republicans have redistributed more wealth upwards in the last 40 years than was ever "redistributed" down. You are a shill for the leisure class.

Letting people keep their own money is not redistribution.

It is not your own money. You have to contribute to society. It is what enabled you to accrue whatever money you have. You are talking about pure greed.

So "thou shalt not steal" has no meaning to you.

You never had the "freedom" of not being taxed. You have the "freedom" of representation while taxed.

Oh it sure does. Especially when done by Wall St, Corporate America, and the Repulican Party.

So does though shall not lie.

Or bear false witness. Commit adultery. etc. Yet you voted for the man. Hypocrite.

You like this facist state so you can get a tax cut? How greedy is that?

Cut it out, you voted for Bill Clinton.

And taxes are the confiscation at gun point of its citizens' wealth. That's how government supports itself. But it is our money they are taking.

I like tax cuts because the economy likes them. When the economy does well more people have jobs and in the end the government gets more money even though tax rates are lower.

Very simply, the United States is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Enforcement of Law and Order requires that those seeking asylum be granted legal hearings. Closing the border would be a violation of the treaty we, The United States, signed.

Hmm, the asylum seekers have crossed at least one border already so perhaps the country that let them in owes them asylum?

Tax cuts can make sense. Doing so in a way that adds so much to the national debt is irresponsible.

And the usual argument that the debt is driven by social programs ignores the hyper-spending on the military. Yes, we need to have a military. No, we don't need to be spending more than twice as much as China and Russia combined. Too much of military spending is "off budget" which distorts the real proportions of where our tax dollars are going.

I also fail to comprehend why billionaires need tax breaks. They already have more money than they could possibly spend short of buying up huge monuments (yachts, skyscrapers, etc). We need those tax dollars to pay for simple stuff like traffic lights and police as well as bigger projects that help the economy.

Here is the problem drwho. You are a citizen of this country. You enjoy benefits of being that. It is your civic duty to pay taxes. The nice thing is it is progressive. Those who can afford it should pay more.

If government is a social contract, then taxes are owed the government for services rendered, not the ability to pay.

You sound like a dirty old miser who bitches at the guvment cause they take mah money and give it to them po peoples.

You sound like a thief without the courage to put a gun to someone and demand "your money or your life". That's why you need government.

Paying for social programs, starting with education, is the best and most cost efficient means of keeping people out of prisons. And education is a lot cheaper than prison. Fewer criminals to break into the rich folks' estates is providing a service. And it needs to be funded up front.

I am against gun ownership. And it was George Washington who put a gun to the Whiskey Insurgents heads. I stand with the Founders. :-)

We cut money for education here so people like drwho can be swayed by racist propaganda and deny climate science.

Penguin, I agree with you IF the education given includes the inculcation of morality.

which morality?

Anti LGBTQ morality? Prosperity gospel morality?

Donald Trump morality?

Well there is the problem, you don't know what is moral and neither does the government, so I don't think either of you are qualified to run the schools.

Whose morality? That tends to be the demesne of religion and religions don't agree with each other. Thus public schools teach civics.

Nor are you to include morality in the schools.

They don't teach civics in most public schools anymore in the U.S.

I think it is the parents job to educate their children and that means the parent morality is which morality.

Yes that is why I went to Religious Instructions on Wednesdays from my public school to the catholic school 5 blocks away, You want to send your kid to a Madrasa you have every right in this country. But not in a public school.

I agree that parents should teach morality. There's a whole lot more than just reality that needs to be learnt and the only way for the bulk of society to have the tools to be productive is to provide education. And that should include civics.

Unfortunately the Religious Right, Fox News and the Mega Churches want religion and their morality pushed down our throats in the public school and through charter schools and vouchers.

Typos. Should have written:

There's a whole lot more than just morality that is part of the reality that needs to be learnt and the only way for the bulk of society to have the tools to be productive is to provide education.

Intolerance, hatred of the others, greed. You can have their morality.

The public schools are currently pushing secular humanism on their students, is that any better?

and what happens Penguin when we cut taxes like the Republicans do? public education suffers and drwho they should be pushing secular humanism that is what this country was founded on. It is what America stands for.

There is no war on Xmas. There is no threat of Sharia law. It is a trop to push more Fundamentalist Christianity on us because they are more easily bullshitted into the prosperity gospel.

I'm done. time to go to my second job so I can retire at 65 instead of the 66 and 6 months you douchebag republicans have made me wait for my full SS benefits that I paid into all my working life. FU Republican scum.

:-)

Tuco, this country was settled by people seeking religious freedom. The government is perhaps secular in its nature but it was never intended to force any particular religion or philosophy on its citizens the way public schools do today.

As far as I know, the objection to secular humanism is that it is a form of atheism. But the schools are not teaching any religion including not teaching that there is no deity. The public schools steer clear of such subjects. By not endorsing your deity they are not denying it, just allowing children to believe religiously what they are taught at home or in their church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or circle.

Religious freedom does not include the right to inflict your flavor of religion on others.

I'm not seeking to inflict anything on anyone. That's why I don't want public schools to have a monopoly on education.

School vouchers.

done

Fast clicker. 9.

School vouchers are usually implemented in a way to harm public schools. To that I strongly object.

If the vouchers are to fund religion, then it conflicts with the 1st Amendment. Paying for a religion is endorsement of that religion.

The first amendment does not prohibit funding religion. It prohibits a state church. If vouchers allow you to chose to weather or not to have your child religiously educated then there is no establishment of religion.

As for harming public schools, making them compete in the market place is a good thing, even for the public schools in the end.

Frankly, if we want some sort of public funding for education, and we do, then it should be done at the state and local levels. Again, the federal government has intruded into an area it has no constitutional authority for.

start

And in fact, that is how it was. It was the 1960s I believe when the push for Federal funding of education got going.

done

Funding an institution is implicit endorsement.

Parents wanting their kids to have a religious education is not in conflict with public schools ... there used to be a concept of "Sunday School". Kids can exist in both spaces.

Competitive schools? That's for sports. Educational resources should not be squandered on advertising.

The problem with local funding of schools is that poor communities end up with poor schools which cripples the kids' opportunities to climb out of poverty. Schools should be uplifting students no matter their origin.

But the choice of which institution is funded is not made by the government.

Competitive school mean there is an education market. When there is competition in the market you get more efficient with the use of your money or go out of business.

With school vouchers the people in poor communities get a choice. In fact, as I understand it, it is people in the poor communities that want vouchers the most.

People in poor communities will not get a choice with vouchers. No voucher program will ever meet the cost of attending a private school. It will only give middle class citizens the opportunity to make up the difference in that private education with their voucher money, pullmore funding away from public schools and leave those left behind (children and facilities) with an education further out of reach for them.