Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-29-2013, 02:36 AM   #31
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Why should the government be concerned about his having proper papers if he drifts into US airspace? It hasn't been very concerned about 11 million (or much more) aliens drifting into US landspace without proper papers.

What is "interesting" is the effort to go after this guy for exposing the depth of what most of us, and the terrorists, assume--that the government is spying on us, but the effort pales to go after and prevent those "undocumented" folks from residing here and having a far greater effect on our economy, government expenditure, health care and educational facilities, and even our security, than Snowden's little gambit.
"As I say, just another day in the life of the republic: a corrupt bureaucracy dispensing federal gravy to favored clients; a pseudo-legislature passing bills unread by the people’s representatives and uncomprehended by the men who claim to have written them; and a co-regency of jurists torturing an 18th-century document in order to justify what other countries are at least honest enough to recognize as an unprecedented novelty. Whether or not, per Scalia, we should “condemn” the United States Constitution, it might be time to put the poor wee thing out of its misery."

National Review Online | Print
scottw is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 02:46 AM   #32
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

To compare this with a single person breaking the law to expose the excesses of an administration's misuse of what are perceived as lawful programs after berating the previous administration for claimed abuses that were far less in scope and size and possibly doing some harm to US interests doesn't make a lot of sense although it does highlight the distraction that the administration seems to have in monitoring and controlling the lives of ordinary law abiding citizens while turning a blind eye and/or a helping hand to the not so law abiding non-citizens.

-spence
fixed it



c'mon...more than quite a lot of a few related to many are almost positively certain nearly all of the time that the Snowden accident is little more than a media created and driven scandal that is almost certainly as ascertained by nearly every expert in the field as the result of a little "poor management" by someone(s) who has no ties whatsoever to the administration or it's superlative in every way officials with impressive resumes appointed and guided by an infallible President and it's nothing more than that....move along.....pfffftttt

Last edited by scottw; 06-29-2013 at 09:24 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:54 AM   #33
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
"As I say, just another day in the life of the republic: a corrupt bureaucracy dispensing federal gravy to favored clients; a pseudo-legislature passing bills unread by the people’s representatives and uncomprehended by the men who claim to have written them; and a co-regency of jurists torturing an 18th-century document in order to justify what other countries are at least honest enough to recognize as an unprecedented novelty. Whether or not, per Scalia, we should “condemn” the United States Constitution, it might be time to put the poor wee thing out of its misery."

National Review Online | Print
It is becoming a common observation and refrain that the Constitution is all but dead as a viable blueprint of governance--it is no longer even living and breathing. For our politically stupefied populace who still have some vague notion that the Constitution is "the law of the land," it is paraded as the legal basis for federal legislation and judicial decisions which are connected to it by subterfuge and which are actually in opposition to and destructive of it. Take the latest SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA. In the above article, Steyn points out Kennedy's moral or personal or intellectual reasoning (as well as thoroughly revealing its idiocy), but he doesn't mention the Justice's faulty and inconsistent constitutional reasoning. Kennedy, somehow, invokes the constitutional notion of equal protection. Sure, if a state makes gay marriage legal, thereby defining marriage to include that status, it deserves equal protection and due process. But what, in the Constitution, gives the Federal Gvt. the power to distribute benefits to people who get married that it does not to people who don't? What is the equal protection and due process available to single people to either get Federal benefits that married people get, or protects them from having their income redistributed to the married? And where is this vaunted equal protection when it comes to the progressive income tax? Why must some pay at higher rates than others rather than at the same rate? And where is this equal protection when the Fed decides winners and losers? When it subsidizes one and not another? When it artificially protects farm income (actually making it more feasible to promote big agra and more difficult to maintain small farms) but not mom and pop stores? When it bails out big business (which it more easily can regulate and from whom it can garner larger chunks of easier collectible revenue as well as large campaign contributions) but not the little guy, or other big businesses that fail as well? And on, and on, and on.

Justice Kennedy's opinion is, as Steyn says "just another day in the life of the republic . . ." It is rule by personal whim and opinion. The Constitution has nothing to do with it other than as a twisted cover for decisions and legislation. And the Snowden incident, and the immigration fiasco, etc., are all part of this bureaucratic system rather than constitutional governance.

It is amazing how the redefined "We the People" demand (or are convinced to demand) guarantees on every product we buy, or health care we get, and insist that government enforces those guarantees . . . but we have lost the guarantees against government overreaching power . . . and we seem to think and trust that such power is, and always will be, to our benefit. It is, historically, this growth of government size and power that has led to the tyrannies from which the Constitution protected us. It was the guarantee which we, for convenience, have decided to forego. The progressive administrative State has been growing, now at a faster rate, and is coming to a fruition that even its founders did not envision . . . but which our founding fathers did . . . we are becoming ripe for the domination of central power . . . call it dictatorship (benevolent or not), oligarchy, monarchy, socialism, or whatever name you wish. We are at that state and about ready to be plucked.

Last edited by detbuch; 06-29-2013 at 11:39 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-08-2013, 09:51 PM   #34
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
More than quite a few economists believe that the illegal immigrants who participate in the workforce have a net positive impact on the US economy. More growth with lower inflation...


-spence
This is off topic here, but the thread seems to have died anyway-- Spence, I've wondered if you subscribe to the belief of these economists, and if so does that correlate to lower wages creating lower prices--lower inflation? I recall a previous thread where you disagreed with that correlation.

Or is it just a context thing--lower wages garnered by illegals within an economy being different contextually, than lower wages earned by legal citizens?
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:47 PM   #35
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
This is off topic here, but the thread seems to have died anyway-- Spence, I've wondered if you subscribe to the belief of these economists, and if so does that correlate to lower wages creating lower prices--lower inflation? I recall a previous thread where you disagreed with that correlation.

Or is it just a context thing--lower wages garnered by illegals within an economy being different contextually, than lower wages earned by legal citizens?
I'm not sure I understand the question. There are many variables here...

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 09:49 PM   #36
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'm not sure I understand the question. There are many variables here...

-spence
Most questions have many variables as well as answers which differ dependent on context and perception. Therefor, I suppose, most questions might be difficult for you to understand.

Different contexts and variables also apply to the understanding of statements as well as questions. Your statements, especially those many which are one or two line quips with little to no direct expositive content, are fraught with numerous contextual variables making it difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend in a definite, meaningful way . . . . . . . . . .

But that is the problem with relativistic discourse . . . . . .

Everything is relative, there are no absolutes, ideas shift in diverging ways and cannot coalesce in concrete agreement . . . . . . . .

I tried to restrict the question within the confines of your stated context of illegal immigrants having a net positive impact on the U.S. economy--MORE GROWTH WITH LOWER INFLATION. And I queried if there would be a difference if legal citizens worked under similar conditions that illegal immigrants do in creating more growth and lower inflation. Or if there was something intrinsically different about legal vs. illegal in the context of creating more growth and less inflation if they both worked for the same pay . . . . . .

If there is no difference on the economy whether the work is done by legals or illegals if done for the same pay, is there then, a correlation between prices and wages in such a way that overall lower wages would demand overall lower prices? I recalled a previous thread where you seemed to disagree with such a correlation . . . . . . .

Last edited by detbuch; 07-12-2013 at 08:53 AM..
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com