Because (a) the government IS the people, and (b) corporations are sociopathic. Corps will take and take and take so long as their short-term profit is projected to increase. Unless you make it 100% bold-faced illegal, they'll do it (and sometimes even then).
I just have to add to my other reply.
By your logic, that means that the government needs to take all the wealth and freedoms from the people, *that the people currently have*, before the corporations do (despite the fact that only the government may use lethal force and imprisonment) because:
Someone is going to call the shots.
This is just so wrong on so many levels one doesn't even know where to begin...
Do you seriously believe that the UN has a plan to make people "more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored"?
Well, Agenda 21 *does* call for Western governments to "encourage" their citizens, through laws & regulations, to move into metropolitan/urban centers. That's right in the UN policy documents for Agenda 21. The results would be, whether or not they come right out and declare it as a goal, that the population would be more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored.
If you want to take over the world, starting with the UN will guarantee that you get stuck in a quagmire.
Well, Agenda 21 didn't seem to hit much of a "quagmire", since it's currently part of the UN policies and doctrines. Many US cities and counties (not sure about official State adoptions) are already implementing "Sustainable Development" plans & policies in line with Agenda 21. Many US city websites have links to information about their "Sustainable Development" adoption plans.
Maybe you should do a bit of research before instantly poo-pooing it.
What does your hatred for sympathy and human collaboration have to do with the reality of rising oceans?
What does an emotional reaction like sympathy have to do with supposedly-rising local sea levels and increasing government power and taxation? I prefer logic and science myself, but I guess YMMV.
wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus.
only if you live in an urban environment. where i live 20 miles from town there is no bus. (and it rains much of the years so bike is out) Car transport in much more important for people like me.
The UN's "Agenda For The 21st Century" (Agenda 21) says you lot should all be herded into a more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored metropolitan center anyways under their "Sustainable Development" plans.
How else will the government be able to more easily & cheaply monitor absolutely everyone for potential "Thought-Crime"? After all, only terrorists and criminals want to avoid having their every move and conversation watched & monitored by CCTV.
You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.
Yeah, but I'm certain it will be a totally different matter for anyone making a false copyright infringement claim against a member of the government.
You terrorist! You're likely also planning to bomb a tube station!
...As always, more money and power for the government!
Color me surprised!
That seems to be a real popular and universal solution for just about every problem these days, especially among politicians and those on the Left. It seems like every problem...from racism, domestic violence, and economic downturn, to global warming, poor little Trayvon, and terrorism...ALL can be solved, Citizen! Just give us your money & freedom! We'll even throw in some food stamps!
Hey, it's worked great in the US for ~100 years, right? Just look what it's done for Detroit just since 1961!
I thought a report was just published that the ocean levels are rising because of humans sucking water out of underground reservoirs and dumping in into the ocean,
Nah, it's all the Brawndo being consumed in D.C. and NYC and being pissed out, eventually finding it's way to the sea.
P.S. when you learn to refrain from ad hominems you can accuse other people of using strawmen, got that, fatty?
I didn't engage in ad hominem attacks. Not unless you count naming ideologies and the people who adhere to them as what they are without the PC bullshit.
If that offends you, too bad. Put on your big-boy pants ya whiney little goose-stepping, Leftist pimple!
See the difference? *That's* an ad hominem! And it's also has the beauty of being a fact.
So, it's state governments that are achieving record-level deportations?
Ahem...
"The Obama Administration drastically inflated statistics to show that it has deported a record-high number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, according to federal data obtained by a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the government.
The new documents reveal the figure is actually at an all-time low and rapidly decreasing, leaving the Obama Administration with egg on its face just weeks after bragging about removing an unprecedented number of criminal aliens. In mid-October, ObamaÃ(TM)s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director jubilantly announced that nearly 55% of the record 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 were convicted of felonies or crimes.
The real figure is less than 15%, according to federal records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research center that provides detailed information about the operation of hundreds of government agencies. The number of deported criminal aliens has been declining steadily throughout the past year, the TRAC analysis found, even though fiscal year 2010 had an already low level of 16.5%.
In the first quarter of the fiscal year (October - December 2010) 15.8 percent of deported illegal immigrants were charged with engaging in criminal activity, 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January - March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April - June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July - September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent, according to records obtained from the government through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
TRAC analyzed case-by-case records covering all proceedings filed in the nationÃ(TM)s immigration courts, which operate under the Justice DepartmentÃ(TM)s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The total number of deportation proceedings for aliens with criminal records dropped from 40,500 in fiscal year 2010 to 33,763 in fiscal year 2011. The number of individuals removed for national security or terrorism decreased from 42 to 30 during the same period.
This certainly contradicts the administrationÃ(TM)s claims that itÃ(TM)s focusing on removing criminals while it grants backdoor amnesty to otherwise Ãoelaw-abidingà foreigners living in the U.S. illegally. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) even issued new guidelines ordering immigration agents to prioritize deporting convicted criminals and those who pose public safety and national security threats."
I don't pay a lot of attention to the trivialities of partisan, campaign rhetoric. I'm more interested in facts, such as the Obama administration's record deportation of undocumented immigrants. [washingtonpost.com]
The Obama Administration drastically inflated statistics to show that it has deported a record-high number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, according to federal data obtained by a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the government.
The new documents reveal the figure is actually at an all-time low and rapidly decreasing, leaving the Obama Administration with egg on its face just weeks after bragging about removing an unprecedented number of criminal aliens. In mid-October, Obamaâ(TM)s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director jubilantly announced that nearly 55% of the record 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 were convicted of felonies or crimes.
The real figure is less than 15%, according to federal records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research center that provides detailed information about the operation of hundreds of government agencies. The number of deported criminal aliens has been declining steadily throughout the past year, the TRAC analysis found, even though fiscal year 2010 had an already low level of 16.5%.
In the first quarter of the fiscal year (October - December 2010) 15.8 percent of deported illegal immigrants were charged with engaging in criminal activity, 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January - March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April - June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July - September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent, according to records obtained from the government through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
TRAC analyzed case-by-case records covering all proceedings filed in the nationâ(TM)s immigration courts, which operate under the Justice Departmentâ(TM)s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The total number of deportation proceedings for aliens with criminal records dropped from 40,500 in fiscal year 2010 to 33,763 in fiscal year 2011. The number of individuals removed for national security or terrorism decreased from 42 to 30 during the same period.
This certainly contradicts the administrationâ(TM)s claims that itâ(TM)s focusing on removing criminals while it grants backdoor amnesty to otherwise âoelaw-abidingâ foreigners living in the U.S. illegally. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) even issued new guidelines ordering immigration agents to prioritize deporting convicted criminals and those who pose public safety and national security threats.
The fact that you ascribe the actions of Stalin (and others) to Liberalism and Progressivism just shows that you don't know jack shit about what you're saying.
Nice strawman.
Liberalism/Progressivism is a form of Collectivism, as is Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. They are Statists. They believe that the collective supersedes the rights and wellbeing of the individual. Buy a clue from somebody please, if you can't find it yourself.
Your sig is and always has been a troll.
No, it points out one of the key differences between Progressivism and the principles set out in the US Constitution. Progressive principles and policies are about restricting/forbidding/mandating/regulating private individuals and businesses behaviors and actions. They are about enacting more and more control. The principles set forth in the Constitution and by the founders are restrictions on *government* scope and power, and empowers individuals.
People like you scare me. You don't deal with facts, you deal with emotions.
Sounds more like you're looking in a mirror to me, as proven by your reaction to my sig. Your comment upon it was a purely emotional knee-jerk, rage-filled, reactionary rant.
By the way, Jesus taught that helping the poor was a personal and individual voluntary act, not a mandatory act forced by authority.
If you buy into the "Social Justice" and "Economic Justice" as they are defined by the Left, then you seriously need to wake up. You're a sheeple. As long as you are determined to remain a sheeple, there is no reasoning with you, as you have no ability to do so. You gave up reason and freedom for bread and circuses.
If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens
It's funny that you're so certain about this when there are so many historical examples of this not being the case.
Hell, even local police have no problem using violence to oppress citizens of their own city. Would you personally have any problem opening fire on a bunker that, according to intel, held a group of liberal badthinkers? I doubt it. If it comes down to it, all the government has to do is convince the military that it's us-vs-them, and many people already have that mentality. Yourself being a perfect example.
How do you know that I'm not in command of several NG units and their armories and armored motorpools, also including some air assets like attack & transport helos? I know that *I* would not follow orders to attack a domestic target unless I was DAMNED SURE who/what/why I was attacking. I don't think any other competent officer or commander would either. At least, all the ones I've known would not.
We don't need no stinkin' college-boy essay to tell us what our rights are. If Fox News says it's ok to probe my orifices at the airport as long as I've got nothing to hide, that's just fine with me. That don't make me gay, does it?
Excuse me, I hate to burst your bubble and interrupt a good Fox News-bashing, but many (most?) of the Fox political opinion shows and personalities like the former-Fox personality Glenn Beck (before he left), Sean Hannity, Judge Napolitano, Stossel, and others have aired numerous pieces against the TSA, internet and other privacy invasions by government, warrantless searches/seizures/tracking/arrests, SOPA, ACTA, PIPA, etc etc etc.
They've even been the first to bring some of these stories to national air, as compared to outlets like NBC/MSNBC (owned by General Electric that's in BHO's pocket) that only air things like this that put the government, and this administration in particular, in a bad light after they can no longer avoid it and retain any credibility whatsoever with their viewers.
They (Fox News) have their faults, and you can criticize their political opinion show's views all you want, but in this area, they've done far more to bring these things to the public's attention than the MSM has. The MSM has, for the most part, been MIA on these types of stories. Look how long NBC held out on reporting on F&F.
But of course, that won't stop many here from ignoring the message and shooting the messenger for partisan political reasons. Just like many of the same people will rail against government invasions of privacy and violations of rights, but paradoxically turn around and scream for more/expanded government powers and control over (other) people's lives with the next breath.
Mate, if the government comes to take away your free speech with a team of Navy SEALS and a cruise missile as back up you're going to need more than a fucking target rifle to stop them.
Right, the only possible alternative to letting idiots and sociopathic corporations "self-regulate" is Stalinism.
Right, and there just aren't enough laws and regulations already.
[facepalm]
Small government =/= no government. Regulation to provide a relatively fair and free market doesn't take tens of thousands of different laws and regulations, hundreds to thousands of pages each, that strangle entrepreneurs and mom & pop businesses in mountains of paperwork and lawyer fees simply to avoid massive fines and even jail time.
When you've got kids with lemonade stands in their front yards and school kids having a bake sale to buy new sporting equipment for their school or little-league team being ticketed and fined, or just plain forbidden to operate by big men with guns, that's a sure sign that the shit is way out of control.
reality has far too many shades of grey that require thinking to interpert and understand.
With too many shades of grey the whole world becomes an exercise in moral equivalency that devolves to the lowest common denominator and destroys the fabric of a society.
But then children won't learn to grow up with an irrational fear of guns.
Irrational?
Yes, "irrational".
Do you need a dictionary definition, or is English your second language? An example of rational fears for children would be unsupervised swimming pools and automobiles. Both kill FAR more children than guns.
Here's a recent news story about a 14-yo kid using a firearm to protect himself and his siblings from an armed home intruder.
If this kid or his parents had your neurotic fears, it's quite likely he and his siblings, and possibly his parents as well when they came home, would be dead/abducted/assaulted/raped now.
This is not an isolated incident. Firearms in the hands of private citizens save innocent lives every day.
So, yes. A fear of guns in general is irrational. It's only a tool. It's the person wielding the tool, not the tool itself, that determines whether the tool will help or harm, that will take life or save life.
Please don't make everyone else suffer for your neurotic, paranoid, irrational fears.
You're welcome to argue the point with the authors of the US Constitution.
Many, many other countries have laws protecting freedom of speech with strict restrictions on firearm ownership. You are free to debate the pros and cons of both amendments, and any other rights you believe people have, either due to legislation or inherent human rights, but you cannot claim that the 2nd amendment is a necessary partner of the 1st.
You'll excuse me if I stand with the authors of the US Constitution's holding on the subject, coming from those who have actually formed a successful democratic republic that has risen to the worlds most powerful, most wealthy, and most free nation, with the highest average standard of living and greatest amount of individual freedom to ever exist, in only roughly a bit over a century after it's founding.
A totally unprecedented achievement in human history, considering that nearly every other country, only a century after founding, had barely even solidified a stable government, and remained insignificant powers on the world stage for many more decades and even centuries, and many still not reaching anywhere close to their potential even after many centuries.
When you find another system that has bested ALL that, and in a shorter time period, then talk to me. Until then, your words have zero credibility with nothing to back them up. They are sound and fury without significance.
Capitalism is PRONE to serious problems, especially when corporations hijack the government.
That's the key right there...you don't give the central government enough powers or strong enough powers to be an attractive/productive target. People, whether in government or corporations, are imperfect and corruptible. That's why the Constitution seeks to severely limit the federal government's size, scope, and power.
No matter what laws you pass or who is elected, until federal government size, scope, and power are scaled way back from it's current levels, it will remain rotten and corrupt.
As for your attack on Liberalism, I attribute none of the "ISMs" of which you speak to liberalism.
Then you don't know what you're talking about, are in denial (it's not a river), or are simply too partisan and closed-minded to admit it.
Conservatism is the tendency to avoid in fact prevent change. Conservatism looks at the world framed in past based conversations and tries to preserve a consistent and workable status quo through tradition ideals and methods.
That's a dictionary definition of the word which has little relationship with it's ideological/political meaning as I used it and as others commonly use it.
Here's an abbreviated "working" definition:
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, the plain-language meaning of the Constitution, and a strong national defense. We believe as the founders did that the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems rather than expanding the size, scope, and power of government to solve them.
Bill Clinton was very good at grabbing credit for being in the midst of an upward-moving economic bubble, and actually prevented the economy from becoming as good as it could have been. His policies accelerated the downward plunge we're now experiencing and made it more severe. Bush doubled down on those failed policies, and Obama is tripling-down on the same failed policies while adding even more, and is steering the US straight off an economic cliff with unsustainable spending, crony-capitalism corruption, and crippling regulation.
You need to be better-educated on economic and ideological realities, and not take what some pundit or professor told you to think at face value. The world, national economies, and Collectivism (of which Liberalism/Progressivism is a subset, along with socialism, communism, and fascism) don't work the way you think they do.
If you want to see the results of Liberalism/Progressivism, you need look no further than Detroit. It's been under total Progressive control since 1961. It almost looks more like Somalia than Somalia does now.
I'm not going to take any chances. There is no reason to be carrying a rifle in a mall unless you just bought it. I'll take my life over inconveniencing the moron who was carrying the rifle.
Then you'd better not leave your house. In any large-ish group of people in public there are going to be at least a couple that are carrying a concealed firearm. In many States, you'll see any number of random people openly carrying a firearm walking down the street, or sitting in the next booth at Denny's or standing in line next to you at the gas station/convenience store.
Your fear is irrational in the extreme.
Get therapy instead of trying to inflict the consequences of your neurotic symptoms on the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anybody ever seen this EU Commissioner and Obama in the same room at the same time?
They seem to have far too much in common in their views on honoring the results of votes.
Just sayin'...
Wow guys, "-1 Troll"?
Really!?
C'mon, that was *funny* right there, I don't care who you are!
Man, seems we're graced with some humorless mods today!
Strat
He didn't even do that, though, he said it's going through regardless of what they want.
Has anybody ever seen this EU Commissioner and Obama in the same room at the same time?
They seem to have far too much in common in their views on honoring the results of votes.
Just sayin'...
Strat
Because (a) the government IS the people, and (b) corporations are sociopathic. Corps will take and take and take so long as their short-term profit is projected to increase. Unless you make it 100% bold-faced illegal, they'll do it (and sometimes even then).
I just have to add to my other reply.
By your logic, that means that the government needs to take all the wealth and freedoms from the people, *that the people currently have*, before the corporations do (despite the fact that only the government may use lethal force and imprisonment) because:
Someone is going to call the shots.
This is just so wrong on so many levels one doesn't even know where to begin...
Strat
Because (a) the government IS the people, and (b) corporations are sociopathic.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Like "The People's Republic of North Korea", "The People's Republic of China", and "The People's Republic of Congo".
Yes, I agree. The US *is* headed in that direction at a fairly rapid pace.
Thanks for helping me point that out for everyone.
Strat
Yeah, taking power away from the government (which by definition gives it to corporations
How is NOT taking power and wealth away from PEOPLE giving it to corporations?
Your logic fails.
Strat
Do you seriously believe that the UN has a plan to make people "more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored"?
Well, Agenda 21 *does* call for Western governments to "encourage" their citizens, through laws & regulations, to move into metropolitan/urban centers. That's right in the UN policy documents for Agenda 21. The results would be, whether or not they come right out and declare it as a goal, that the population would be more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored.
If you want to take over the world, starting with the UN will guarantee that you get stuck in a quagmire.
Well, Agenda 21 didn't seem to hit much of a "quagmire", since it's currently part of the UN policies and doctrines. Many US cities and counties (not sure about official State adoptions) are already implementing "Sustainable Development" plans & policies in line with Agenda 21. Many US city websites have links to information about their "Sustainable Development" adoption plans.
Maybe you should do a bit of research before instantly poo-pooing it.
Strat
What does your hatred for sympathy and human collaboration have to do with the reality of rising oceans?
What does an emotional reaction like sympathy have to do with supposedly-rising local sea levels and increasing government power and taxation? I prefer logic and science myself, but I guess YMMV.
Strat
The UN's "Agenda For The 21st Century" (Agenda 21) says you lot should all be herded into a more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored metropolitan center anyways under their "Sustainable Development" plans.
How else will the government be able to more easily & cheaply monitor absolutely everyone for potential "Thought-Crime"? After all, only terrorists and criminals want to avoid having their every move and conversation watched & monitored by CCTV.
Strat
You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.
Yeah, but I'm certain it will be a totally different matter for anyone making a false copyright infringement claim against a member of the government.
You terrorist! You're likely also planning to bomb a tube station!
(Not you personally, NettiWelho)
Strat
...As always, more money and power for the government!
Color me surprised!
That seems to be a real popular and universal solution for just about every problem these days, especially among politicians and those on the Left. It seems like every problem...from racism, domestic violence, and economic downturn, to global warming, poor little Trayvon, and terrorism...ALL can be solved, Citizen! Just give us your money & freedom! We'll even throw in some food stamps!
Hey, it's worked great in the US for ~100 years, right? Just look what it's done for Detroit just since 1961!
Strat
I thought a report was just published that the ocean levels are rising because of humans sucking water out of underground reservoirs and dumping in into the ocean,
Nah, it's all the Brawndo being consumed in D.C. and NYC and being pissed out, eventually finding it's way to the sea.
Brawndo - It's got what AGW zealots need.
Strat
P.S. when you learn to refrain from ad hominems you can accuse other people of using strawmen, got that, fatty?
I didn't engage in ad hominem attacks. Not unless you count naming ideologies and the people who adhere to them as what they are without the PC bullshit.
If that offends you, too bad. Put on your big-boy pants ya whiney little goose-stepping, Leftist pimple!
See the difference? *That's* an ad hominem! And it's also has the beauty of being a fact.
Strat
So, it's state governments that are achieving record-level deportations?
Ahem...
"The Obama Administration drastically inflated statistics to show that it has deported a record-high number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, according to federal data obtained by a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the government.
The new documents reveal the figure is actually at an all-time low and rapidly decreasing, leaving the Obama Administration with egg on its face just weeks after bragging about removing an unprecedented number of criminal aliens. In mid-October, ObamaÃ(TM)s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director jubilantly announced that nearly 55% of the record 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 were convicted of felonies or crimes.
The real figure is less than 15%, according to federal records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research center that provides detailed information about the operation of hundreds of government agencies. The number of deported criminal aliens has been declining steadily throughout the past year, the TRAC analysis found, even though fiscal year 2010 had an already low level of 16.5%.
In the first quarter of the fiscal year (October - December 2010) 15.8 percent of deported illegal immigrants were charged with engaging in criminal activity, 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January - March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April - June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July - September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent, according to records obtained from the government through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
TRAC analyzed case-by-case records covering all proceedings filed in the nationÃ(TM)s immigration courts, which operate under the Justice DepartmentÃ(TM)s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The total number of deportation proceedings for aliens with criminal records dropped from 40,500 in fiscal year 2010 to 33,763 in fiscal year 2011. The number of individuals removed for national security or terrorism decreased from 42 to 30 during the same period.
This certainly contradicts the administrationÃ(TM)s claims that itÃ(TM)s focusing on removing criminals while it grants backdoor amnesty to otherwise Ãoelaw-abidingà foreigners living in the U.S. illegally. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) even issued new guidelines ordering immigration agents to prioritize deporting convicted criminals and those who pose public safety and national security threats."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/12/obama-admin-skews-deportation-figures/
Strat
I don't pay a lot of attention to the trivialities of partisan, campaign rhetoric. I'm more interested in facts, such as the Obama administration's record deportation of undocumented immigrants. [washingtonpost.com]
The Obama Administration drastically inflated statistics to show that it has deported a record-high number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, according to federal data obtained by a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the government.
The new documents reveal the figure is actually at an all-time low and rapidly decreasing, leaving the Obama Administration with egg on its face just weeks after bragging about removing an unprecedented number of criminal aliens. In mid-October, Obamaâ(TM)s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director jubilantly announced that nearly 55% of the record 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 were convicted of felonies or crimes.
The real figure is less than 15%, according to federal records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research center that provides detailed information about the operation of hundreds of government agencies. The number of deported criminal aliens has been declining steadily throughout the past year, the TRAC analysis found, even though fiscal year 2010 had an already low level of 16.5%.
In the first quarter of the fiscal year (October - December 2010) 15.8 percent of deported illegal immigrants were charged with engaging in criminal activity, 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January - March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April - June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July - September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent, according to records obtained from the government through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
TRAC analyzed case-by-case records covering all proceedings filed in the nationâ(TM)s immigration courts, which operate under the Justice Departmentâ(TM)s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The total number of deportation proceedings for aliens with criminal records dropped from 40,500 in fiscal year 2010 to 33,763 in fiscal year 2011. The number of individuals removed for national security or terrorism decreased from 42 to 30 during the same period.
This certainly contradicts the administrationâ(TM)s claims that itâ(TM)s focusing on removing criminals while it grants backdoor amnesty to otherwise âoelaw-abidingâ foreigners living in the U.S. illegally. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) even issued new guidelines ordering immigration agents to prioritize deporting convicted criminals and those who pose public safety and national security threats.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/12/obama-admin-skews-deportation-figures/
Oops?
Strat
The fact that you ascribe the actions of Stalin (and others) to Liberalism and Progressivism just shows that you don't know jack shit about what you're saying.
Nice strawman.
Liberalism/Progressivism is a form of Collectivism, as is Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. They are Statists. They believe that the collective supersedes the rights and wellbeing of the individual. Buy a clue from somebody please, if you can't find it yourself.
Your sig is and always has been a troll.
No, it points out one of the key differences between Progressivism and the principles set out in the US Constitution. Progressive principles and policies are about restricting/forbidding/mandating/regulating private individuals and businesses behaviors and actions. They are about enacting more and more control. The principles set forth in the Constitution and by the founders are restrictions on *government* scope and power, and empowers individuals.
People like you scare me. You don't deal with facts, you deal with emotions.
Sounds more like you're looking in a mirror to me, as proven by your reaction to my sig. Your comment upon it was a purely emotional knee-jerk, rage-filled, reactionary rant.
By the way, Jesus taught that helping the poor was a personal and individual voluntary act, not a mandatory act forced by authority.
If you buy into the "Social Justice" and "Economic Justice" as they are defined by the Left, then you seriously need to wake up. You're a sheeple. As long as you are determined to remain a sheeple, there is no reasoning with you, as you have no ability to do so. You gave up reason and freedom for bread and circuses.
Strat
If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens
It's funny that you're so certain about this when there are so many historical examples of this not being the case.
Hell, even local police have no problem using violence to oppress citizens of their own city. Would you personally have any problem opening fire on a bunker that, according to intel, held a group of liberal badthinkers? I doubt it. If it comes down to it, all the government has to do is convince the military that it's us-vs-them, and many people already have that mentality. Yourself being a perfect example.
How do you know that I'm not in command of several NG units and their armories and armored motorpools, also including some air assets like attack & transport helos? I know that *I* would not follow orders to attack a domestic target unless I was DAMNED SURE who/what/why I was attacking. I don't think any other competent officer or commander would either. At least, all the ones I've known would not.
Strat
And about fire arms. We're not living in the times of the wild west any more.
I agree.
It's far more dangerous now, as today criminals can expect that their potential victims are most likely unarmed and therefor have far less to fear.
Strat
We don't need no stinkin' college-boy essay to tell us what our rights are. If Fox News says it's ok to probe my orifices at the airport as long as I've got nothing to hide, that's just fine with me. That don't make me gay, does it?
Excuse me, I hate to burst your bubble and interrupt a good Fox News-bashing, but many (most?) of the Fox political opinion shows and personalities like the former-Fox personality Glenn Beck (before he left), Sean Hannity, Judge Napolitano, Stossel, and others have aired numerous pieces against the TSA, internet and other privacy invasions by government, warrantless searches/seizures/tracking/arrests, SOPA, ACTA, PIPA, etc etc etc.
They've even been the first to bring some of these stories to national air, as compared to outlets like NBC/MSNBC (owned by General Electric that's in BHO's pocket) that only air things like this that put the government, and this administration in particular, in a bad light after they can no longer avoid it and retain any credibility whatsoever with their viewers.
They (Fox News) have their faults, and you can criticize their political opinion show's views all you want, but in this area, they've done far more to bring these things to the public's attention than the MSM has. The MSM has, for the most part, been MIA on these types of stories. Look how long NBC held out on reporting on F&F.
But of course, that won't stop many here from ignoring the message and shooting the messenger for partisan political reasons. Just like many of the same people will rail against government invasions of privacy and violations of rights, but paradoxically turn around and scream for more/expanded government powers and control over (other) people's lives with the next breath.
Strat
Mate, if the government comes to take away your free speech with a team of Navy SEALS and a cruise missile as back up you're going to need more than a fucking target rifle to stop them.
You must have missed my post here, mate: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2934847&cid=40430717
And this one here as well: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2934847&cid=40431983
Cheers!
Strat
Right, the only possible alternative to letting idiots and sociopathic corporations "self-regulate" is Stalinism.
Right, and there just aren't enough laws and regulations already.
[facepalm]
Small government =/= no government. Regulation to provide a relatively fair and free market doesn't take tens of thousands of different laws and regulations, hundreds to thousands of pages each, that strangle entrepreneurs and mom & pop businesses in mountains of paperwork and lawyer fees simply to avoid massive fines and even jail time.
When you've got kids with lemonade stands in their front yards and school kids having a bake sale to buy new sporting equipment for their school or little-league team being ticketed and fined, or just plain forbidden to operate by big men with guns, that's a sure sign that the shit is way out of control.
reality has far too many shades of grey that require thinking to interpert and understand.
With too many shades of grey the whole world becomes an exercise in moral equivalency that devolves to the lowest common denominator and destroys the fabric of a society.
Strat
Yes, "irrational".
Do you need a dictionary definition, or is English your second language? An example of rational fears for children would be unsupervised swimming pools and automobiles. Both kill FAR more children than guns.
Here's a recent news story about a 14-yo kid using a firearm to protect himself and his siblings from an armed home intruder.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-23/phoenix-teen-shoots-intruder/55782484/1
If this kid or his parents had your neurotic fears, it's quite likely he and his siblings, and possibly his parents as well when they came home, would be dead/abducted/assaulted/raped now.
This is not an isolated incident. Firearms in the hands of private citizens save innocent lives every day.
So, yes. A fear of guns in general is irrational. It's only a tool. It's the person wielding the tool, not the tool itself, that determines whether the tool will help or harm, that will take life or save life.
Please don't make everyone else suffer for your neurotic, paranoid, irrational fears.
Strat
This is patently incorrect.
You're welcome to argue the point with the authors of the US Constitution.
Many, many other countries have laws protecting freedom of speech with strict restrictions on firearm ownership. You are free to debate the pros and cons of both amendments, and any other rights you believe people have, either due to legislation or inherent human rights, but you cannot claim that the 2nd amendment is a necessary partner of the 1st.
You'll excuse me if I stand with the authors of the US Constitution's holding on the subject, coming from those who have actually formed a successful democratic republic that has risen to the worlds most powerful, most wealthy, and most free nation, with the highest average standard of living and greatest amount of individual freedom to ever exist, in only roughly a bit over a century after it's founding.
A totally unprecedented achievement in human history, considering that nearly every other country, only a century after founding, had barely even solidified a stable government, and remained insignificant powers on the world stage for many more decades and even centuries, and many still not reaching anywhere close to their potential even after many centuries.
When you find another system that has bested ALL that, and in a shorter time period, then talk to me. Until then, your words have zero credibility with nothing to back them up. They are sound and fury without significance.
Strat
Wow!
The Progressive astroturf mod brigade must be out in full force!
How is it that someone insults *me*, does it *embarrassingly* badly, and my pointing that out and noting how funny that is, is modded "Flamebait"?
Oooh, that's right. I'm pointing out an embarrassing, telling, and *hilarious* screw-up made by a Liberal/Progressive!
I guess I should be thankful that a fatwa hasn't been issued on me for such heresy.
Yet.
I guess I'll have to try harder! :D
"I'm laughing at the "superior intellect", Khan!" - Adm. James T. Kirk
Strat
Capitalism is PRONE to serious problems, especially when corporations hijack the government.
That's the key right there...you don't give the central government enough powers or strong enough powers to be an attractive/productive target. People, whether in government or corporations, are imperfect and corruptible. That's why the Constitution seeks to severely limit the federal government's size, scope, and power.
No matter what laws you pass or who is elected, until federal government size, scope, and power are scaled way back from it's current levels, it will remain rotten and corrupt.
As for your attack on Liberalism, I attribute none of the "ISMs" of which you speak to liberalism.
Then you don't know what you're talking about, are in denial (it's not a river), or are simply too partisan and closed-minded to admit it.
Conservatism is the tendency to avoid in fact prevent change. Conservatism looks at the world framed in past based conversations and tries to preserve a consistent and workable status quo through tradition ideals and methods.
That's a dictionary definition of the word which has little relationship with it's ideological/political meaning as I used it and as others commonly use it.
Here's an abbreviated "working" definition:
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, the plain-language meaning of the Constitution, and a strong national defense. We believe as the founders did that the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems rather than expanding the size, scope, and power of government to solve them.
Bill Clinton was very good at grabbing credit for being in the midst of an upward-moving economic bubble, and actually prevented the economy from becoming as good as it could have been. His policies accelerated the downward plunge we're now experiencing and made it more severe. Bush doubled down on those failed policies, and Obama is tripling-down on the same failed policies while adding even more, and is steering the US straight off an economic cliff with unsustainable spending, crony-capitalism corruption, and crippling regulation.
You need to be better-educated on economic and ideological realities, and not take what some pundit or professor told you to think at face value. The world, national economies, and Collectivism (of which Liberalism/Progressivism is a subset, along with socialism, communism, and fascism) don't work the way you think they do.
If you want to see the results of Liberalism/Progressivism, you need look no further than Detroit. It's been under total Progressive control since 1961. It almost looks more like Somalia than Somalia does now.
Here's the Liberal/Progressive utopia of Detroit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw
I live about an hour away from Detroit. That video is actually kind. Detroit is actually much worse than even what that video conveys.
Strat
I'm not going to take any chances. There is no reason to be carrying a rifle in a mall unless you just bought it.
I'll take my life over inconveniencing the moron who was carrying the rifle.
Then you'd better not leave your house. In any large-ish group of people in public there are going to be at least a couple that are carrying a concealed firearm. In many States, you'll see any number of random people openly carrying a firearm walking down the street, or sitting in the next booth at Denny's or standing in line next to you at the gas station/convenience store.
Your fear is irrational in the extreme.
Get therapy instead of trying to inflict the consequences of your neurotic symptoms on the rest of us.
Strat