Sound Off (April 26)

Jim M LC-NM wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't go that far and give progressives that much credit as to say they fixed all those things you list.

Jim M LC-NM wrote:

<quoted text>
Good and fair post. The only question is can the country afford the HC we now have as it was passed. We may be revisiting the HC bill before much of it is enacted. Much of the good in the bill will stay, that will not be the intent to take good out. The visit will be to lower costs, that has to be done. HHS's Medicare actuary has said openly in the past few days the costs were grossly under estimated and the higher costs were know before the bill was passed. Something is going to have to give before the dust settles on this issue.

ABC123 wrote:

<quoted text>
We have no choice but to afford it. If we have to change the way things are done, and I don't doubt for a second we'll have to, then so be it. Seems we can always afford a way, rightfully most of the time IMO, when we need to.
It'll wind up just like education. If you don't want to pay extra you get adequate (and all griping aside it is adequate) education. If you want to pay a premium you get a better product. But everyone gets adequate.
My Walmart comparison was in terms of the way they purchase (I don't mean to lecture, I'm sure you're aware of it). They represent such a big customer that they can force all kinds of concessions from their suppliers. I don't expect that a government agency will be as efficient as the Walmart BoDs, but if the proper oversight is applied they can do a whole lot better for us than anyone is doing today. Yes, I think we're on the path to single payer and I hope to God we get there.

Judged:

1

1

1

Blue State wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose those changes occurred because of the fine, God fearing beneficence of the plutocrats who love common people. I don't think so. American history is the marvelous adventure of the empowerment of common people. That is called progress. The founders who were the midwives of this nation's birth were the political liberals of their day. The reactionaries returned to England. You should try reading and experiencing that story sometime.

Jim M LC-NM wrote:

<quoted text>
You are not giving the God fearing American common person enough credit for being able or wanting to take care of him or her self?

Judged:

1

1

1

Jim M LC-NM wrote:

<quoted text>
It wont be overturned in time, but maybe stayed until it is fast tracked to the Supreme Court. You are what if-ing or presenting what if's, lets cross the bridges when we get to them. There are laws to deal with people who treat others wrong. As to proving citizenship, it may be necessary unless you have a surefire method to solve the immigration problem without proving it occasionally. To just let this thing fester isn't an answer, the riots in AZ were very close to being a donnybrook. Bush had 720 miles of fence authorized and waited to the last minute to start building it. Obama may have stopped the building before the 720 was finished I don't know. That job should have been finished and 720 more of triple layer authored until the border had a good neighbor fence the full length. Another thing is we have a program called E-Verify that is 99.8% accurate that should be used mandatory in every state in the nation. If an illegal immigrant can not get a job they will go way and no one has to prove anything. However, President Obama dropped that ball. Had it been on the agenda and made mandatory the problems would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. What say you?
I am not in the camp to let anyone here illegally become a citizen until that border is sealed except for where the watched gates are installed. In 1986, we were made promises and illegals were made citizens and now we are in the same quandary. Let's make sure 1986 doesn't happen again. Then if the border is sealed, we have a few issues about who gets to come here and stay that have to be worked out. We can get into that when the border is secure. I thinking now most here now will make the grade and will in time be citizens.

Judged:

1

1

1

Boycott Arizona wrote:

<quoted text>
A big fence is a waste of taxpayer dollars. A large majority of illegals came here legally with visas and then stayed here after their visas expired. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...
Plus, do you know how easy it would be to build a ladder to scale your billion dollar fence?

Blue State wrote:

<quoted text>
How do Boarder Patrol agents make a determination of citizenship/resident status? Everyone who has ever traveled from Las Cruces toward Albuquerque, Deming or Van Horn has been stopped on the Interstate. There must be some criteria. What is it?

libtalkingpoint wrote:

<quoted text>
if it is so unconstitutional why do i get asked my citizenship everytime i go pass a border control check station by federal officers
what is the difference

Lebowski wrote:

<quoted text>
So you'd rather have concentration camps, is that it?

Judged:

1

1

1

Impeach Obama wrote:

<quoted text>"Many immigrants who are in the United States illegally never jumped a fence, hiked through the desert or paid anyone to help them sneak into the country. According to a recent study, 45 percent of illegal immigrants came here on a legal visa, and then overstayed that visa. NPR's Ted Robbins reports on the massive visa overstay problem and what the federal government is doing to deal with this aspect of the illegal immigrant issue. "
So, a large majority is 45%? Where did you study math? Kindergarten maybe? Caught in another lie and you were dumb enough to cite a source that confirms your lie. Ask your mother for help NOW!

Judged:

1

1

1

Boycott Arizona wrote:

<quoted text>
The 45% number was based on a 2006 statistic, which was a much higher percentage than the 2000 number. A "large majority" is based on an extrapolation to 2010 as there is no real way of counting illegals. All numbers on illegals are estimations.

Judged:

1

1

1

Blue State wrote:

<quoted text>
On the contrary, I have faith in the American people and this country's future. I don't believe that our best days are behind us as you obviously do. We live in an impersonal, integrated world of multi-national corporations and economic oligarchies who are only interested in their own profit margins. Witness the Senate hearings yesterday. Do you believe they have any concern for our national interests? Do you think they care one twit for you, your family and your (as my wife would say) hopes, dream and aspirations? The Founders understood they needed to rely on each other to achieve their goals. We need to reaffirm that 'social contract'.

Judged:

1

1

1

Boycott Arizona wrote:

<quoted text>
A big fence is a waste of taxpayer dollars. A large majority of illegals came here legally with visas and then stayed here after their visas expired. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...
Plus, do you know how easy it would be to build a ladder to scale your billion dollar fence?

Jim M LC-NM wrote:

<quoted text>
A two or three layer fence will fix that. The fence will be tool used in conjunction with the Border patrol and the two working together will change a lot of things for the better. This ladder nonsense is just that. They may use the ladder at the fist layer, but they wont have it at the second and third layer. While these people are busy crossing the fences the border patrol will catch them.

Blue State wrote:

<quoted text>
This a two thousand mile border across some of the most inhospitable terrain in America. It is a massive problem. There will be no easy fixes. I am not arguing against the effort nor am I condemning Arizona for its frustration in trying to solve the problem. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government and every sovereign nation to secure its borders--I better check that word--thanks 'Impeach'! Every administration since Wilson has abdicated that responsibility and he didn't do a very good job. The commitment in personnel and capital investment will be costly. A triple fence won't do it. It ain't gonna be easy!

Judged:

1

Jim M LC-NM wrote:

<quoted text>
It wont be overturned in time, but maybe stayed until it is fast tracked to the Supreme Court. You are what if-ing or presenting what if's, lets cross the bridges when we get to them. There are laws to deal with people who treat others wrong. As to proving citizenship, it may be necessary unless you have a surefire method to solve the immigration problem without proving it occasionally. To just let this thing fester isn't an answer, the riots in AZ were very close to being a donnybrook. Bush had 720 miles of fence authorized and waited to the last minute to start building it. Obama may have stopped the building before the 720 was finished I don't know. That job should have been finished and 720 more of triple layer authored until the border had a good neighbor fence the full length. Another thing is we have a program called E-Verify that is 99.8% accurate that should be used mandatory in every state in the nation. If an illegal immigrant can not get a job they will go way and no one has to prove anything. However, President Obama dropped that ball. Had it been on the agenda and made mandatory the problems would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. What say you?
I am not in the camp to let anyone here illegally become a citizen until that border is sealed except for where the watched gates are installed. In 1986, we were made promises and illegals were made citizens and now we are in the same quandary. Let's make sure 1986 doesn't happen again. Then if the border is sealed, we have a few issues about who gets to come here and stay that have to be worked out. We can get into that when the border is secure. I thinking now most here now will make the grade and will in time be citizens.