Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So questioner if they have unlimited resources is our only alternative to take up arms?
I think 'questioner' is fishing for controversy. From the OP, it appears that they are promoting the "we can't beat em, so let's join em" roll-over-and-play-dead stance. Interestingly, this is not the first thread they started with something controversial, and then disappear and not respond to other posters' questions and comments.
I think 'questioner' is fishing for controversy. From the OP, it appears that they are promoting the "we can't beat em, so let's join em" roll-over-and-play-dead stance. Interestingly, this is not the first thread they started with something controversial, and then disappear and not respond to other posters' questions and comments.
I think it's going to come down to the States, cities, counties making their own laws, as they have been doing. And, I think that eventually, that will work against illegal immigrants whether they have supporters or not. In cities, or counties, or states, you have local government, which is more powerful for that particular area, and they don't CARE what the federal government is saying, or what some group like LaRaza has to say.
Do not dispair. We will win in the end, and save our country, piece by piece.
I agree, the states and localities will have a lot to do in this. But I still think a president that supports the measures to implement the laws and secure the borders would be a big plus.
Also, I love your optimistic attitude. I hope and pray we will save our country too.
I think 'questioner' is fishing for controversy. From the OP, it appears that they are promoting the "we can't beat em, so let's join em" roll-over-and-play-dead stance. Interestingly, this is not the first thread they started with something controversial, and then disappear and not respond to other posters' questions and comments.
What more do you want me to say? The courts control everything in America. If you disagree with a government decision take it to court. The same reason it takes 20 years of court appeals to build a new highway. We need to elect a President who will appoint judges who support elected representatives decisions and stop being so activist.
Last edited by questioner2; 12-20-2007 at 01:47 PM..
What more do you want me to say? The courts control everything in America. If you disagree with a government decision take it to court. The same reason it takes 20 years of court appeals to build a new highway.
Then, go to work to change the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights
We need to elect a President who will appoint judges who support elected representatives decisions and stop being so activist.
So you don’t like checks and balances, is that what you’re saying? If elected representatives created laws saying people of mixed races shouldn’t marry, then judges should not overrule those laws as unconstitutional? That would be judicial activism? Then why bother with a judicial branch if everyone should just follow the elected representatives decisions.
By the way, since it is just the legislative branch that should be supported, does that mean the president no longer gets to veto legislation? After all, he too should support the elected representatives. Right?
So you just want one branch, a legislative branch with all the authority and decision making and the other two branch are just “yes” men/woman.
So you don’t like checks and balances, is that what you’re saying? If elected representatives created laws saying people of mixed races shouldn’t marry, then judges should not overrule those laws as unconstitutional? That would be judicial activism? Then why bother with a judicial branch if everyone should just follow the elected representatives decisions.
By the way, since it is just the legislative branch that should be supported, does that mean the president no longer gets to veto legislation? After all, he too should support the elected representatives. Right?
So you just want one branch, a legislative branch with all the authority and decision making and the other two branch are just “yes” men/woman.
I say whoever doesn't like the way the three branches of our government operate, go find one that better suits their mood and stay there.
Interesting that User 2 is responding for questioner2 . Their very names are such a koinkidink....
I say whoever doesn't like the way the three branches of our government operate, go find one that better suits their mood and stay there.
I wonder, if they see a car being driven poorly on the road, do they blame the car or the driver? Would they suggest the driver get a new car?
I may not like what politicians do, but I wont destroy the whole system to change it, I’ll just vote to change the politicians. When you change it to accommodate the politican, you end up losing more when someone you don’t want in power gets there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Their very names are such a koinkidink....
