Tuesday May 3, 2016
Jump to content
President Obama, as you have heard, has released something like 2,000 illegals, blaming it on the Sequestration issue and lack of funds.
Three hundred of them were released in the towns and cities of Arizona.
Governor Brewer sees the move as "political payback."
Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement say that the released illegals--who have each been charged with a crime--are not a problem because they have to "check in regularly and remain subject to deportation."
The governor said she was in Washington, at an event with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the night before the release. "And she didn't warn me or tell me anything,'' Governor Brewer says.
Not a problem?
Do you agree with that?
Why were they not taken across the border to be released?
Your question hits the bulls-eye, doesn't it? If they are not here legally, then they should have been transported to the border and dropped off. If one of them feels that he or she deserves a hearing, how long would it take to hold 300 hearings? Give me the job and I'll do it for you single-handedly in three weeks.
We make too much of all this crap. It's simple enough. Remember that each of those three hundred people has been charged with a crime. Works like this:
"Okay, Miss Ree, you are a foreign national, were picked up for shoplifting, and have no papers. Why should we not send you home?"
"Well, you see, I was here on a student visa, but I forgot to renew it. I intended to, but..."
"You forgot? For twenty-two months? Do you have anything further to offer?"
"Send her home. Next case."
It took me two minutes to type that. It would take me one minute to say it. We would clear the list of already arrested illegals inside of 30 days. It would send a message to people that they could no longer get away with abusing our laws.
As for Barack Obama, I did not vote for him, but I did argue long and hard in his defense after he was elected and people tried to blame him for a recession that started before he came into office, and in his defense when people tried to blame him for the bailouts of American companies.
My bottom line on him as far as immigation is concerned is that he should be charged with violating his oath of office and be removed from that office as a warning to all politicians everywhere that we are as fed up with "vote chasing" as we are with "skirt chasing," and we will no longer put up with anyone, in any office, who violates the oath he swears, and fails to serve the nation instead of his own narrow interests.
I'm really amused that some people are surprised by anything this President and his administration do. The kind of people they were and are, their political ideology, and their goals for this nation were very evident to all during the elections. More than 50% of the citizens of this country wanted what they have to offer. That says more about the low information voters than anything else. There is a very passionate struggle for the heart and soul of this country and currently, those that want an America that reflects European Socialism are winning the battle. I watch, I listen, and I see nothing that surprises me from this Marxist and his minions. I've read his "bible" so I know from where he is coming.
Wanna bet the Prez and his acolytes are all for the Transistion Town Movement.
I'm going to strongly differ with you, but I think it only strengthens your point of view. I think that Barack Obama flatly lied to us, that he promised "change," knowing full well that what we wanted was change from a federal government that chased votes instead of acting for the people. I did not vote for him because I was not fooled, but many were, and I find it hard to blame some of them. People were longing for a change, a move away from a government that spent its time worrying about reelection instead of doing what has to be done. That is what I heard him saying. "Change! Change! Change!" Well, we got no change, did we? What we got was even more of the same. We got even more of what we wanted to see the end of.
So why did someone who so blatantly lied to us get reelected? Because we put another one of the same up against him. I tell you frankly, I never believed a word that Mitt Romney said. I looked at what he had done in Massachusetts instead. And I looked at what and who he was. He would have embraced the hard conservative line that is as bad as the leftist elitist line. We need an American, not a %$#@! politician.
Obama lied. And he convinced just enough independents to vote for him so that he is is office. However, that lie has now grown so large that no one could possibly swallow it. It is, just as you say, as clear as glass that his agenda is NOT the agenda of America. This is a land where the individual stands supreme, not a land where success is achieved by giving up liberty. Obama and his kind must go! Not just in the next election, but forever. There is no place in a land of liberty for elitists who seek to rule us instead of leading us.
If only we can find someone to lead us out of this desert. I've been looking. There's a Texan named Ted Cruz who might fit the mold, but I'm waiting to hear a clear cut message from him that he will lead the fight to send illegals home no matter what it may cost in votes. He has yet to make that statement. He has come close, but he is still hedging. I think that the first man who gets up on his two hind legs and says, "To hell with votes. Don't elect me if you don't want to hear the truth," will win with such overwhelming numbers it will astound the world.
Explain. Like to know what it means.
Just got done with all my manly chores--cooking, cleaning, washing clothes et al (I did get to pick up the pine cones out front, though). Came back in, opened the forum, took a glance, and realized I had failed to say what I started out to say.
What I wanted to do was to reply to your calling Obama "this Marxist and his minions." I didn't do that.
If Obama were another Trotsky or Lenin I would at least respect his honest belief in a misguided attempt to make the world run according to a theory which falls flat on its face every time it is tried. If I thought he really was a Marxist I would at least respect the fact that he is pushing something in which he believes. But he isn't. He isn't a Marxist; he's an opportunist, a vote grabber, and nothing more--other than a flat out liar.
He said "change;" he not only gave us no change, he gave us more than ever of the same old bag of...oops!...can't say that.
There are some very good people in the Democratic Party, people who genuinely believe that the individual is what is important. They fight for things like Social Security and Medicare because they feel that the individual comes first and that we--as a people, and as a government of the people--should see to it that we are each here to help all of us. Those Democrats have been sold a BIG LIE, just as we all have.
Proof? Look at his health care bill. Did he actually try to adjust Medicare and Medicaid in a way that took more of the burden off the system by stopping fraud and overcharging? No! He actually had the nerve to mess with private enterprise and health insurance. That's not Marxism; it's not even socialism. It's trying to sell his program by taking from everyone and giving to his eltist buddies in the insurance companies.
How can an "insurance" policy be required to cover something that happened before it was taken out? That's not insurance. If it were we could all wait until we totaled the pickup and then take out insurance. What this is is a method of taking from you and me--people who live according to the system and buy insurance they need (and want!)--and giving to insurance companies. The poor nut who has no insurance and gets sick? He's not the beneficiary of the program; he's as much of a patsy as you and I are. His rights are being stolen too.
So you and I get to pay for everyone's insurance. Nice. Really nice.
I could handle an honest Marxist. Liars I can't abide.
Did I say that better this time?
The one thing we can both agree on is that Obama is an inveterate liar. But then he always has been. That was what I meant by saying that his agenda for this country was on full display for all to see during his first campaign. Perhaps you and many were so desparate for "change" that you actually believed what he was saying. If one does what the media failed to do, actually look into the man's past and who his mentors were, you will appreciate that bald face lies are part and parcel of his approach. When he said he stood for change, he did not mean the sort of change so many Americans were looking for, he meant the kind of change that he has implemented since his tenure in office. And he isn't through yet! What little of his writings and speeches that have not been "secreted" tell an awful lot about his ideology. That ideology reflects the very same as the people who mentored him, Marxist/Socialist. He may not appear to be a true Marxist, as he ran squarely into the political realities of office in a Capitalist driven Constitutional Republic, but that doesn't mean he doesn't see himself as a Marxist. You really do need to read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". If you take the time to do that and if you don't see the pattern Obama is so cleartly following in it, I will not again bring it up.
How can you say what kind of change he meant? Isn't that assuming a lot?
I am not upholding Obama, but I don't think he has lied more than any other politician I have listened to. They say what they have to in order to be elected, then pull out thier true agenda.
100 people can listen to the same speech and come away with at least 20 different versions of what the speaker meant.
If it were your choice who would you like to see elected president?
I think we need to listen to Ron. He seems to have lifted a sewer cover and seen what's beneath it. I'm going to take a look at the earlier Obama and see what I find.
On the other hand, I think you ask a good question. "If it were your choice who would you like to see elected president?"
I'll bet we all agree on that one: Somebody else!
If Obama has bought into the cockeyed, twisted, illusions of Karl Marx he is more than just another politician; he is a fool. There are always slow and easy-to-fool people who will listen to anything. If he is one of them, then it is critical that we show him for what he is. Marxism is Fantasy Land.
Ask Lenin what kind of practical plans Marx left behind him. Poor Lenin found himself in the position of someone who was suddenly pushed into the limelight of history during the Russian Revolution without a clue what to do with his good fortine. Read the history of Russia in the early years. They were making up Communism as they went along. There were no great plans, no Marxist guidelines, just a lot of words. It was strictly play-it-by-ear. That's why the pasted together mess they created fell apart. It was doomed from the first day because it was created out of whole cloth from words, not from a practical view of how to make the world work.
If Obama really has really bought into what Karl Marx had to say he's a throwback to a generation which had no experience with reality when it came to Marxism.
We can forgive the people of the late 19th century and early 20th century for being naive. It was a time of sudden growth in genuine wealth because of the Industrial Revolution, but also a time when robber barons like John D. Rockefeller and others like him abused the very free enterprise system that had made them rich. There were bitter strikes going on, actual shooting wars between labor and industry, and in contrast to later years there is no doubt that the working men and women were on the side of truth and liberty.
Few people today know of things like the Ludlow Strike (often called the Ludlow Massacre) in Colorado where camp guards from the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, backed up by the Colorado National Guard, made an early morning attack up on a tent city of striking workers and their families who had been chased out of their company-owned homes. Twenty-two people died , including two women and eleven children who died in a single burning tent. The Colorado mining country became a war zone in which somewhere between 70 and 200 people died.
With things like that going on, and people like Rockefeller using unfair business tactics against smaller companies, it is no surprise that people listened to Karl Marx, who spoke in theoretical terms of an economy based on justice and fairness. But from a practical viewpoint his ideas were nonsense. They failed to take into account the realities of human nature.
People do not want to be controlled, to be told where and when they will work, what they will do, what they will eat, and what they will wear. People long to be free, to reap the harvest of their labor, to be equal under the law but not in the returns they receive for getting up in the morning and going to work. People WANT there to be differences. People WANT to see greater rewards for greater work. People WANT there to be be someone they can admire and try to equal. That's human nature. We do NOT want to share and share alike. Deep down in our hearts, each of us is convinced that his or her way is the right way. Why else would we be different?
We need our heroes. We need our millionaires. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a fool.
That's human nature, and private enterprise is plugged directly into that powerhouse; that's why it succeeds so well. Some people believe that when Lenin and Trotsky came into power they used Marx's books as a practical guide to building a new world. They didn't. Marx left no such guides. He was a cockeyed theoretician, bound up in rhetoric, totally lacking in practical plans to implement his ideas.
If Obama can buy into such claptrap, he too is a fool.
As far as I am concerned all politicians want to be in complete control of all of us.
Unions are the same.
I really didn't know any better than anyone else if what Obama was professing he wanted for this country when he first stood for president was true or not.. What I do think is true, from my experience, is precisely what you said, "They say what they have to in order to be elected, then pull out thier true agenda." If one accepts the premise that "all" politicians lie, then it behooves one to look into thier past in an effort to see what they truly believe and get some insight into their possible agenda/ideology. What statements has that person made in the past, which way did they vote on certain issues, etc? As I said, if you were to have done that then it was fairly clear as to what Obama's agenda was and just how he planned to see it implemented. There is much we still don't know about the man, as his first act after his election was to seal all documents and papers that were revealing as to his PERSONAL ideology and where he came by it. It was really not that difficult if one truly put their mind to finding out about him. As Tom has alluded to, so many simply wanted "hope and change" from the way Washington has been for decades. Obama tapped into that desire and went full bore with it, all the time never really revealing his true thoughts on the idea. I sense there was one instance when he slipped up a bit, and that was with his response to "Joe the Plumber" about taking from the workers and giving to the non-workers. His "handlers" jumped all over that and along with the assistance of a willing MSM, took the conversation back onto the "Hope and Change" playbill. Pretty much from that point on he never spoke without a teleprompter that didn't have him say just what his "handlers" wanted him to say and therefore not let him waunder into dangerouse waters regarding their true approach to that " Hope and Change" so many wanted.
I wasn't particularly enthralled with George Bush. I often found myself defending the "office" of president against his detractors who obviously hated the man and made no bones about it. That type of rhetoric was displayed right here on the Roundup Blog and you know it. I cautioned that those folks that were so disrespectful of the President, whoever was in office, would recieve back in spades,a like response to "their" chosen candidate. Time has proven me dead right on with that assessment. We can be criticle of any President's agenda, and still not attack the man/woman personally, and therefore not demean the office. I don't hate Obama, I simply disagree with his socio/political ideology and take every opportunity to make sure he knows that. That's part and parcel of what makes America great. I don't buy into the "birther" thing and his being a Muslim. I will leave those issues to history. What I am concerened about is the very "type" of change he is literally forcing upon this nation. Does Obamacare sound familiar? And that's only one instance. I could list many more but then it would simply seem like I was piling on. I really pray that this country is resiliant enough to recover from what this man and his minions are doing to it. Once again, time will tell.
It's obvious that Obama's election was a backlash reaction to GW. The shame about that is that he was a genuinely nice person, but he was used by people like Karl Rove, who "handled" him the same way that you say that Obama is being handled (i'm sure he is, but I also think he is as far left as he looks).
I will never forget the day of the shooting on a military base when George W. Bush--done with politics and now a private person, and with nothing to gain--showed up on base and went to the hospital to talk to the wounded. I have read that he and he wife had tears in their eyes that evening, and I believe it.
What a shame it is that he didn't try to educate the American people to the reality that the evil head of Iraq had to be taken out to stabilize the Middle East instead of using phony data to get us in there looking for WMD that everyone knew didn't exist. GW lost all his credibility when he let that happen. And when he allowed waterboarding to continue after he found out about it he went against some of the fundamental beliefs of our nation. It's hard to put that together with the kind of man he was.
Anyway, the only way Obama got into office was on a campaign against the Karl Roves of the Republican Party, who I know you agree are almost as dangerous as the socialists. If we could lop off both ends of the political spectrum and get together as a nation we'd be a lot better off.
Please notice that I said "almost."
I wonder? Here's a question for you as a thinking person:
I haven't the slightest doubt why we have a political curve that looks like this: /// We have DEMs, INDs, and GOPs in about equal numbers. And I think that if you took all the people out of each of those groups who think alike and put them into one party--call the American Party, you would have a curve that look like this: . / .
In other words, if we could just get the people who think alike into a single party, get rid of the influence of greedy business-related extremists, AND socialist elitists, we'd have a party that actually represented more than 75 or 80 percent of Americans.
Take a touchy issue like the environment. There isn't person in this country who doesn't want to see the planet stay healthy. What the hey! We have to live on it! So everyone is for reasonable steps to get that done. We need, for example, to develop more nuclear power plants and other sources of electricity so that we can switch back to rail for the majority of a large transportation. We need to make it so handy to take a train from Payson to Phoenix, and to rent a cheap little electric car while down there, that most people prefer it. We need to make it worthwhile for private businesses to do all that.
But what do we get? Idiots who think that penalizing coal fired generators is the way to go, and other idiots who are wllling to tell any kind of lie to prove that global warming is a myth. We get other idiots who spend millions of dollars trying to save species right up here on the Colorado Plateau which are doomed by the FACT that this area is still being uplifted and the species on it are going to change no matter what we do, and other idiots who say its okay to waste money trying to save them as long as the money goes into businesses.
Now, Ron, I ask you. How do we get the people who aren't fooled by all the rhetoric to come together and say what needs to be said?
What needs to be said? A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!
I don't have a precise answer to your question. I do have an opinion about it however. As long as Progressive/socialists have control of the Public Education System and our institutes of higher learning, we are not going to get current generations, who were basically indoctrinated in those places, to see any party that does not reflect kumbaya socialism as a party they can belong to or support. Oh, there are always remnants of people who can see through the smokescreen, but like us, they are not a large enough constituency to make a difference in an election. It will take the ultimate demise of the American experiment for there to be anything resembling the America we grew up in to ever reconstitute itself. Pessimism? You bet. I've been around long enough to be able to discern a reptitition of history.
I can see where you are coming from, Ron.
I'll tell you this much, though: If we don't come together and get some kind of agenda for 2016 we are cooked. More of the same is not going to cut it.
I just can't go along with the idea that one person, the president has all the power everyone seems to think he does. How many senators and congressmen are as corrupt as you all say Obama is? They must believe in what he is doing or they would change things. Or are they just there and have no power? If they have no power why do we have them and give them all the money and perks they get for life?
How much money has been invested looking for something to prove about Obama?
What have they really found? Why hasn't he been impeached?
I know, I am considered a dumb old woman for the questions I ask but no one seems to give a good answer that can be proved.
I don't believe I have ever said Obama was corrupt. As a matter of fact, he is doing precisely what one would expect from someone with his ideology. No surprises there nor is there any need to be "corrupt'. He's simply setting about providing all that "Hope & Change" so many bought into.The problem is that the "change" as he sees it, is an anathema to the principles this nation was founded upon. Still, many are very satisfied with his direction. After all, why would they not be, they get a fairley comfortable standard of living and don't even have to work for it.
If the last sentence was aimed at me, my husband and I both worked for what we have. We never drew unemployment one day of our lives or any other freebie. We paid our debts, maybe not always on time, but they were always paid.
We have always helped our kids and many other people, most of which didn't pay us back.
Mistakenly thought promissary notes were decoration to hang on thier walls.
On bad days I have considered taking out an ad in the paper and list all thier names and amount owed.
You didn't answer my questions either.
You can take it from me that Ron's comment was not aimed at you. You and Roni worked hard all your lives; you're the kind of people on the opposite side of the see saw.
What Ron is talking about are people who are lazy and easily corruptible. You've seen them. I was in an office a couple of days ago. I went there to see if I could tell them a couple of things that might help them improve their service, things I thought they might not know. I took one look around, saw a room full of drones, and left. It was no use. The people I saw were doing nothing in a place which was always behind. There was no use telling them about the problem; they WERE the problem.
I've seen people like that, though I can't say I've known very many personally. I have never been able to understand why they didn't want to work. How can you spend your whole day doping off? Wouldn't you go crazy doing nothing? I would. I know how to relax and enjoy life, but I can't go into work and do nothing.
I have seen people who sat talking all day, getting nothing accomplished. I've seen the ones who work so slowly that the pile on their desk is the same size at the end of the day as it was at the beginning.
I was transferred to an Air Defense squadron in Ohio once. My job was to take take of the On the Job Training Program. That's a big thing in the Air Force because we get young men who come in, stay one hitch, and leave, so we are always training. I was sent there because their training program was lousy. Out of a medium sized squadron of 423 men about 80 were on OJT. I had a little office all by myself. I went to work and in about 90 days things were much improved, at least up to the standard and still getting better.
All of a sudden they told me I was going to be in charge of all training; that gave me 423 men to worry about instead of 80. They put me in the main training office, and now I had three people working for me, and I had to learn about maintenance training, which was out of my field before. Took me about four or five months, but we were soon rated as outstanding and I was promoted to master sergeant.
But here's what got me. When I came to that squadron I was introduced to my direct superior, a senior master sergeant who ran the main office I took over later. Not once before I moved into the main office did he ever say a word to me; not once. I worked directly with the colonel who ran the squadron. And when I went to the main office I was put in charge. And yet there he sat, the drone of the universe, doing nothing--not one thing!--all day. All I ever saw that senior master sergeant do was open the Columbus newspaper every morning and read it from front to back. He was supposed to be in charge, but I was in charge, and yet he never said a word about it, nor did anyone else.
Tom is right, I know your past very well and the various businesses you and your husband were in. Please don't be too quick to believe people are taking shots at you personally. Your hide surely is thicker than that. You've known me on this board long enough to know if I had something derogatory to say to you, there would be no mistaking my intention.
As to the answer to your questions, if I had the answers I would have posted them for you. I really don't care enough about the situation to even research those answers. If you want to know, go after them . You have access to the same Internet info as others and your answers may be obtained there. I simply don't know. And NO! You are not considered "a dumb old woman", at least not by me. We may have our disagreements on various issues, but I value your thoughts and opinions.
I would go on the internet, but I get lost or forget what I am looking for. (:
I really don't know enough about a computer to find things and since Suddenlink took over they erased and changed everything I had. Emails, addresses, favorites you name it, I lost it and got only a little of it back.
I'm currently going through some computer software/hardware problems myself. I know all this technology was supposed to make our lives easier, but so far the only time my life has been easier as pertains to computers, was the two+ plus years I was completely off the Internet and the computer. If all these frustrations continue, I may just return to that stone age again. ;-)
The stone age is usually between 54 and 64, when we are still taking in too much calcium.**
Glad you two are back on track. :-)
**Talking about kidney stones. Had one back then. :-)
Kidney stones are why men don't have babies. Couldn't stand the pain. (:
Pat, As a firefighter I helped in the delivery of a few babies. Trust me when I say there are a whole bunch of reasons men couldn't stand having babies. The pain is certainly part of it, but I gotta' say, I am perfectly happy God gave that task to women.
Amen, Ron! Amen!
Bill Cosby once said that if yoou want to know what it's like having a baby just take your lower lip and stretch it over your head.
As for kidney stones, mine was a little guy, caused by eating too much peanut butter, which contains a lot of oxalic acid and causes stones. I used to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch every day at work. Why? Easy to make, quick to eat, and does the job. I've never been one for much food. Lunch at work for me was 5 minutes.
Anyway, you;d have cracked up to see me the night I got that stone. It was a little guy, dark colored instead of white, about the siz of two BB's together side by side. I woke up about 2 am, sat up and said, "Ouch!" Well ouch it was. This was in our townhouse in the valley. I went downstairs where I wouldn't bother Lolly. You could walk in a circle: through the living room, to dining room, to kitchen, to hall, to living room, and so on. I did that, saying to myself. "Ouch! I have a kidney stone." Around and around I went saying the same thing. Then it abided a bit and I managed to go to sleep. Went to the doctor. They xrayed. He prescribed cranberry juice. I drank it and piddled through a tea strainer until the little devil made it out. Took it in, was told what kind it was, and was told it was my eating too much peanut butter which caused it. Spinach, which I love, is another thing high in oxalic acid.
I do not eat too much peanut butter anymore. :-)
How people can pass some of those monsters I do not know.
And I am VERY glad they have the new treatment for them.
By the way, since no one else answered the question that started this string, I will.
Posting comments requires a free account