I've Been Accused of being Liberal. Okay I'm laying my cards on the table (1 Viewer)

[JimEverett]

What is the name of the plant that the ICE (or INS) found 75% of the workers illegal but allowed the illegals to keep working?

 

[birdog]

They raided all of them if my memory serves me well......but I know the 2 plants in DC were the ones I'm talking about!......

The irony in all of this is that the illegals went DEMONSTRATING AGAINST THE INS for singling them out!! LMAO!!......that's how I know that they WANT TO STAY ILLEGAL!......isn't that funny!

 

[JimEverett]

Are there links to any news articles mentioning this? Its interesting to me because I know that illegal immigrants do work heavily in the meat-plants in the midwest. I think Tyson had to shut down half of their plants on that walk-out day.

I just find it odd that ICE found a large number of illegals and didn;t do anything about it - are you sure it wasn;t local or state police who conducted the raid? IT would make more sense that they would ignore it.

 

[RebSaint]

They raided all of them if my memory serves me well......but I know the 2 plants in DC were the ones I'm talking about!......

The irony in all of this is that the illegals went DEMONSTRATING AGAINST THE INS for singling them out!! LMAO!!......that's how I know that they WANT TO STAY ILLEGAL!......isn't that funny!

Neither party wants to really solve this problem. For the Republicans, it would mean a loss of a cheap and mobile labor force which big corporations don't have to pay taxes or bother giving benefits to. The Dems won't do anything because like the Republicans, are vying for the Latino vote in the big cities/west.

 

[Devildog]

Neither party wants to really solve this problem. For the Republicans, it would mean a loss of a cheap and mobile labor force which big corporations don't have to pay taxes or bother giving benefits to. The Dems won't do anything because like the Republicans, are vying for the Latino vote in the big cities/west.

Yep. Register Independent, folks.

 

[birdog]

Are there links to any news articles mentioning this? Its interesting to me because I know that illegal immigrants do work heavily in the meat-plants in the midwest. I think Tyson had to shut down half of their plants on that walk-out day.

I just find it odd that ICE found a large number of illegals and didn;t do anything about it - are you sure it wasn;t local or state police who conducted the raid? IT would make more sense that they would ignore it.

You are making my point.......I don't know if there are articles about the raids on these plants....but Tyson did indeed had to shut down some of their plants, and I remember reading about that at the IRS raid......but I can't help you with the story about this......sorry, I don't have any info which might help you.....

Some of the story is first hand knowledge.....my wife works at an adult home care center, and she hires many Mexican women at her job......I know some of the stories from her, as she learns them from her employees......all the demands of the illegals I heard from her, when her employees wanted to go demonstrating against the US gov. for taking too much taxes out of their paychecks!.....I know it sound laughable, but its true!!.....of course she went on to say, that if any of her employees missed work on that day, she promised them that they will get canned.......but that particular demonstration did take place in DC!

Now I have no idea what will happen to the plants who were found with these illegals......but NONE OF THEM LOST ANY DAY BY SHUTTING DOWN!.....will they get fined?.....no one says anything on the subject, so I assume nothing will happen.....

 

[Pure Energy]

As a moral conservative and a social moderate, I've been accused of being both a caveman and a liberal. I strive to maintain consistency between Church teachings and my views on political issues. Among friends and acquaintances, I have found it is in vogue is to be a “Cafeteria Catholic” and pick and choose which tenets of the Faith to follow. My experience is that it’s much more difficult to hold a constancy of belief and purpose than to vacillate or flip-flop when popular opinion is in opposition to your core beliefs and values.
<O
I believe the underpinnings of our judiciary and legislation is Morality (I’m defining morality loosely as the interpretation between right and wrong and not a religious code). Since we believe our morality is correct, we want those beliefs to be reflected in our Laws and in the Courts rulings.

So with regard to abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and the Institution of Family, I support the Church’s position on these issues and that’s reflected in my politics. How people can go to Church on Sundays and support candidates who lack or have moral beliefs in opposition to that of their Church is beyond me. Many of my friends support candidates who they believe will put more money in their pocket and don’t care where they stand on moral issues (but I believe that’s a large number of Americans—exhibit "A" is the tolerance for all the pork barrel spending).
<O
With regard to issues of gun control, I believe only wimps need handguns. I’ve argued with many a friend that any civilian carrying a concealed hand gun should be required to carry it in a pink purse. However, civilians should be allowed to own hunting rifles. Gun racks in the back of a pickup are okay. If you must carry a handgun then carry it as a side arm…wild, wild, west style or in a pink purse.

With regard to medicine…injecting free enterprise in this realm is extremely questionable. I think back to field maneuvers with the Guard and a First Sergeant who asked if anyone had any medicine for a headache. Being prior military I stocked nearly every pharmaceutical I could carry. I had Advil and gave him a couple of pills. He asked me how much he owed me. I told him nothing…it was not my place to profit from his illness. He responded, “But how about the folks that sold you those pills. They made a profit.” It got me to thinking that profiting from someone else’s misery is Free Enterprise, but that doesn’t make it right.

With regard to illegal immigration…the reality is you can’t pay most American enough money to work in the Fields picking oranges and tomatoes. I’ve debated this topic with dozens of people and every person I ever debate when I ask if they would actually do the work they always respond, “No, but I’m sure someone else would.” Even when you expand the question to “Do you know anyone who would do that work?” the answer is always the same “No, but I’m sure someone would.” The reality is if produce doubled, tripled or quadrupled in price there would be Americans tearing down the fence between the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Mexico</st1:country-region> and the <ST1U.S.
<O</O
I believe my charge is to make the world a better place for my children and their children and their children… If politics is a means to that end then so be it.

 

[Wombat]

Neither party wants to really solve this problem. For the Republicans, it would mean a loss of a cheap and mobile labor force which big corporations don't have to pay taxes or bother giving benefits to. The Dems won't do anything because like the Republicans, are vying for the Latino vote in the big cities/west.

I also believe that the Republicans, at least some, support an amnesty program because they don't want to pull another 1960 where Nixon alienated the Black vote for the next 46 years plus. I'm sure you know, but the Republicans were the only party Black Americans were allowed to register as during the first part of the 20th century.

 

[JRTexas55]

American 1st.

All of you take a step back. Can you image what we can accomplish by thinking American 1st. instead of Liberal vs conservatives, Dem. vs Rep.

We all have different view, whether its national security, health care, social security, etc. these are American issues. Not Liberal or Conservative, Dem vs Rep.
I consider myself conservative, but we need to focus in taking care of our own right now, for examples Gulf Coast, control the high rise of medical cost, etc.

Write to your congress person, and let them know that we need to solve our own issues, before we can become the world's welfare system.

 

[Sandman]

The "militia" mentioned in the amendment does not refer to one organized in order to fight alongside or in lieu of the U.S. military. The militia mentioned is one formed in order for the people to resist the U.S. Govt should it ever become tyrranical. Additionally, the "militia" is mentioned only in the subordinate clause. Ultimately, the right belongs to the "people."

Where did you read that the militia mentioned is one formed to resist the U.S. Government? Way off base. Let's look at what is actually written:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing in there about resisting the U.S. government. Rather the militia is mentioned to help with the security of the state...actually it says it is "necessary" for the security of the state. This directly contradicts what you just wrote.

 

[Goatman Saint]

Gun control -- I own many. Can shoot very well. Would not give a second thought to killing someone who entered my house to hurt my family. I believe hunter's Safety/Firearm Safety should be a required class to all children.

Gay marriage -- Who cares?

Abortion -- Legalize it, and while you are at it, make birth control availible to all.

Church and State -- You have the right to believe what you want, so long as you don't spout it off to me. Honor my culture as much as you value yours. My money says in god we trust, and nativity scenes are at Christmas. It was what the culture of this country is. Also any church which gets into the political arena whould be paying taxes. I go to church and hear the promotion to go on a hunger fast so God will elect George Bush, then time to pay the tax man.

Taxes -- Falls under spending it wisely. Tax me, just don't waste my money on some overcharged Halliburton subsidy garbage hauler.

Foreign policy -- Shut off all American money to all forgien governments. Then see how quick all these nations want to complain.

Education -- Get the government out of the classroom. Get a decent votech education system in this country for children who are not college bound.

Trade -- Make it reciprical. You don't want our goods, we don't want yours.

Welfare -- Get rid of it. Totally. Gone. Have free daycare and job training or college assistance for people who choose to better themselves.

Campaign finance -- Have the government pick up the tab for all races. Absolutly no lobbyist money allowed.

Death penalty -- Should be put to death after 2 appeals in the same manner they killed the individuals. Do it televised in the town square. THEN it would be a true motivation not to do it. If that is too harsh, set up death row like Japans. Once your sentence is passed, you can be put to death anytime. You won't know till they wheel the gallows to your door and let you out.

Social Security -- Fund it and run it right

Energy -- Have a total comitment to natural renewable energy and efficiancy. The country will not be truely safe nor secure until this happens. Are we there yet with the technology? No, but if it was made a priority, it could be.

Environment -- See energy related comment and this will solve many of these problems. fresh water and clean air are a must. Even if it costs a little more, it needs to be done.

Immigration -- Iron clad enforcement of laws. Then allow people in to work and make them legally protected so that the companies they work for are required to obey minimum wage and OSHA protections.

Civil Liberties -- Essential to who we are as a nation.

 

[RebSaint]

Where did you read that the militia mentioned is one formed to resist the U.S. Government? Way off base. Let's look at what is actually written:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing in there about resisting the U.S. government. Rather the militia is mentioned to help with the security of the state...actually it says it is "necessary" for the security of the state. This directly contradicts what you just wrote.

Historically speaking, it gets real dicey. The historical precedent of this part of the constituion raises the question of which is superior, a state militia, or national army?

In 1786/1794, state militias rebelled against national goverment policy. In the latter they were put down by a nationl army.

Section two of the Constitution gives the president power, or commanding power of a national army, which is never mentioned in the Constituton--state militias are legitimate "when called into national service"--which is ultimately dicey, since the legislature is the official body of gov't which declares war.

 

[Sandman]

Historically speaking, it gets real dicey. The historical precedent of this part of the constituion raises the question of which is superior, a state militia, or national army?

In 1786/1794, state militias rebelled against national goverment policy. In the latter they were put down by a nationl army.

Section two of the Constitution gives the president power, or commanding power of a national army, which is never mentioned in the Constituton--state militias are legitimate "when called into national service"--which is ultimately dicey, since the legislature is the official body of gov't which declares war.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here Reb. I was just pointing out that the language of the Constitution itself doesn't say anything about the militias being used to resist the government. While it happened as you have stated (one of those times was pre-Constitution), that still doesn't mean that "militia" when used in the Second Amendment referred to an armed insurrection against the government as suggested by Wombat.

 

[RebSaint]

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here Reb. I was just pointing out that the language of the Constitution itself doesn't say anything about the militias being used to resist the government. While it happened as you have stated (one of those times was pre-Constitution), that still doesn't mean that "militia" when used in the Second Amendment referred to an armed insurrection against the government as suggested by Wombat.

Sorry I was ambiguous. I think the intent of "keeping a well regulated militia," for the framers meant if they perceived any threat from a strong state, or an intrusive federal standing army--a state could call its militia (based on individual gun-owners rights) of well-armed citizens. Or, they could glean they bolster the national army by calling up state-armies (national guard) to respond to a threat.

I think it actually serves both purposes. If ever the national government wants to disarm the states or the American people, I'm suspicious.

It goes back to the colonists' suspicion of standing armies.

The language in the Constution I was referring to is based on historical experience.

 

[Wombat]

Where did you read that the militia mentioned is one formed to resist the U.S. Government? Way off base. Let's look at what is actually written:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Actually one can find many sources citing what I mentioned.

From The Bill of Rights Primer by A.Reed Amar, professor of law at Yale Law School:

"WE have already noted in our discussion of the 1st Amendment, the rights of the people to petition and assemble in conventions are intimately bound up with the people's right to ALTER OR ABOLISH THEIR GOVERNMENT. "Who shall dare to resist the people?" asked Edmund Pendelton.

To many antifederalists, the answer to Pendelton's question seemed both obvious and ominous. An aristocratic central government, lacking sympathy with and confidence from ordinary constituents, might dare to resist-especially if that government were propped up by a standing army. Only an armed populace could deter such a spectacle. Hence the need to BAR CONGRESS FROM DISARMING FREEMEN. Thus the 2nd amendment is closely linked to the textually adjoining 1st Amendment's guarantee of assembly and petition. The use of the authorative phrase 'the people' from the Constitution's preamble conjures up the Constitution's GRAND PRINCIPLE OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY AND THE POPULAR RIGHT TO ALTER OR ABOLISH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

History also connected the right to keep and bear arms with the idea of popular sovereignty. In Locke's influential 'Second Treatise of Government', the people's right to alter or abolish tyrranous government invariably required a popular appeal to arms. To Americans of 1789 this was not merely speculative theory. It was the lived experience of their age.

To see the 2nd Amendment crafted by the Founding Fathers as being primarily concerned with an individual's right to hunt or to protect his home is like viewing the heart of the speech and assembly clauses of the 1st Amendment as being the right of persons to meet to play Bridge or to have sex."