Steve

This is kinda cool given the state of the economy. http://shine.yahoo.com/event/the-thread/michelle-obama-wows-in-a-35-h-m-dress-2452062/ Michelle Obama wows in a $35 H&M dress. She did the Matt Laur show in it. Not the first time she's publicly worn off the rack and sometimes The Gap, etc. She's a classy lady no matter what you think of Obama. I felt the same about Laura Bush as well, she seemed classy. The only first ladies I wasn't too fond of were Hillary and Nancy Reagan for different reasons obviously. Hillary was a political animal. Nancy seemed a bit of an elitist. I liked Barbara Bush at first and she made a comment or two about the state of the people in the hurricane in New Orleans I thought didn't show enough sensitivity to their plight.

I loved latin class because I had a great teacher but to be honest we were all nerds and there was maybe one hot girl in the latin classes. Only reason I didn't get beat up like the other kids in class was because I was a upper middlle class white suburban HS and the kids were scared of me. lol. Looked great on my college application to take latin though. Most kids had spanish, german or french. I still think the money was the main motivator. Schools are trying to find any source of funding nowadays. It was the reason why that Oakland school tried to get the ebonics as a 2nd language thing years ago.Teachers got extra money and the school did as well if they were proficient in a 2nd language and they didn't know spanish. I'd have preferred if they actually tried to learn spanish, french or german instead of the easy route. Money. The whole thing smacks of money.

I could be wrong on this and its only a guess but I think its a good guess obviously to post about it. The school district saw the money was available and took it. I think its more a commentary on how underfunded our schools are. With the exception of schools in areas with a lot of moslems like west Detroit (I think its west detroit?) I can't see many schools going out of their way to want Arabic. My guess is they are expecting to use some of that money for general school purposes. It seems a fairly large amount for just teaching arabic. A couple extra teachers perhaps or even a couple of their own to learn the basics to teach. Can't be over a million to do all that. So, my guess is they are expecting to use some of that money for their own.

Does he have a problem with states requiring us to buy car insurance? There are a ton of things we have to buy as mandated by the government that would meet the same test as health insurance. I am no big fan of big govvernment but I just think its a bit over the top. I know others don't and I respect that. The FACT is that both parties propose a health care plan. Its part of the national debate. Had McCain won his version would have been forced on us as well. Maybe not as big as Obama's but nonetheless it would have. My question is does the status quo work? Both parties seem to agree that it doesn't. I'm more pissed at Obama for seemingly being too tied to the status quo. I don't see as much of an outsider. Maybe its political reality at work. Its one of the things that attracts me to Ron Paul. I honestly feel he could give a rats ass about the status quo and political reality. He'll do what he says.

You'd be surprised how many of our trade reps and negotiators were either negotiating or have taken up jobs as lobbyists for the countries they were on the opposite side of the table from while serving the U.S. It wasn't illegal for a while, which shows you how Washington protects their own.

C'mon you two play nice! I respect both of you guys opinions, lets debate in good spirit. Tough as most of our topics get us emotionally to some extent. Just from what I can tell the illegal immigration issue remains a problem because to enforce the border will cost that person and their party politically. I don't see it being anything else. A lot of things in this country comes down to getting or staying elected. Just to put a smile on your faces, I literally laughed till I cried when a very good Mexican-American friend of mine said to a black coworker of mine who complained about the issue at a happy hour once '...shit, ain't all you black guys here illegally too?" LMAO...I still laugh when I think about it.

At the end of the day we're saying that people who are American are no longer American. If you can remove citizenship, its a slippery slope. Also, its unconstitutional. Not the first time states have stepped on that piece of paper. We're blaming the wrong people. We're blaming an AMERICAN baby for having an illegal parent. I think we're better served blamng the federal government for not doing its job. Also, we're kidding ourselves if the European immigrants a century or so ago would't have streamed across the border i they were as close as the latinos. We place them upon a pedestal but they came for the same exact reasons a lot of latinos did. They were told by many people to go back to their countries as well and to improve the condition in Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Germany, etc. as well. I get just as pissed off as any one else but this is NOT the way to address it.

Hello Flash, disagree in terms of what? Not sure what point I made that it doesn't agree with. I speculated that if a person was born in the USA of illegal parents at the founding (and were 35) they could be President. I wasn't sure but reading this I don't see how that is not the case if its proven they were born in the USA?

Lets not dance around it. It IS a hispanic issue. Maybe not yours but its whats prompting this. Its the elephant in the room. No one wants illegal immigrants. Of course they should build up their own country, etc. However, taking away birth citizenship is NOT one of the answers. We have a glorious history of expanding who is an American, now we are talking about taking away something that we have always accepted as being American. Its un-American frankly ironically enough. You may grandfather them in but using the line of reason for not accepting children of illegal, someone can make a very plausible and reasonable counter to your suggestion and say that ALL offspring of illegals are NOT American and using the precedence suggested would have a very strong case. Furthermore any constitutional scholor worth his salt will tell you its unconstitutioal. We covered that in an earlier thread. Also do we honestly believe that changing it will curtail illegal immigration sigificantly it all? Its reactionary and over the top. I understand. Truly I do. I live in LA and see the ramifications of illegal latino immigration. A better use of time and energy should be spent on electing people who will handle the problem at its roots. Pols who will take steps to protect the border.

..one more thing..lol...so, if we accept this children of illegal thingy not being American then the 3rd and 4th generation of latinos who have entered illegally decades ago and are also not citizens? Sort of like the legal 'fruit of the poison tree' saying? In theory then someone who's grandparens were illegals 50, 60 years ago is now illegal? Would it also apply only to one parent? If someone had a baby with an illegal immigrant then the baby is illegal? Or not? Related to my first point, you have someone who is the offspring of illegals and they're adults, who have mortgage, kids, etc. They are not American? slipery slope time.

One more thing. To the best of my knowledge and I will say I don't know for sure but at the founding of the country, NO ONE made issue of how you got to the country if you were born in the country (limited to white males, hence the amendment for birthright citizenship), so in theory, if your parents stowed away illegaly and entered the US when it was founded and you were the product of that union in America you were not only a citizen but elgible to becmoe President. Again, I don't know for sure and stand corrected if someone knows for sure but I have no reason to believe otherwise from what I understand.

I made my point clearer in another post. He had a right to be there but NOT a right to be elected president because he was not born in the American colonies. Point is he is a regarded as a founder but not an 'American' in the way the other founders defined what an American was. Someone born in the original 13 colonies.

re-edited.

The point is he could not be electd president. ALL the founders were born before there was a country. The point was they were ALL born in the American colonies and they wanted only someone born there who had a 'natural' stake in the country with no ties to any foreign power by birth or otherwise. Many of the european immigrants that came here decades ago were illegal. The Italians in particular I recall, but a host of them. There is a difference between illegal but there is no difference between someone born on American soil. Their parentage doesn't matter. Its always been that way. Birth citizenship was always seen as sacrosanct. We are a country of immigrants so it really makes it a very touchy issue. I think a lot of us who are the children or grandchildren of immigrants have forgotten the importance of it. I do think its a very, very slippery slope and it won't end there. In fact, I'm certain of it.

I was going to put this in the Board Bar but feared the ire of non Americans. Mom Arrested For Shooting Her Kids For Talking Back First time I read the headline to this I thought it had to be one two things both opposites of the same coin. Ghetto black or trailer park white. If you're honest you did too...lol...tragic as it is. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tampa_teens_shot An arrest affidavit said Schenecker shot her son twice in the head in the family car "for talking back" as she drove him to soccer practice. The report said Schenecker then drove to their upscale home and shot her daughter in the face inside the home. Schenecker's mother called police Friday morning, and told them she was concerned after her daughter had sent an e-mail saying she was depressed. Officers found Schenecker drenched in blood on her back porch  and once they saw the teens, the scene was so troubling that a stress team was called to counsel the responding officers, a police spokeswoman said. However, it turns out she was neither. What makes it even sadder is its a military family. Schenecker's husband, Parker Schenecker, is a career Army officer attached to U.S. Central Command in Tampa. He was working in the Middle East when the shootings happened. In 2008, the family moved to Tampa and bought a $448,000 home in a quiet, upscale suburban neighborhood.

I completely understand the feelings of those who are fed up with illegal immigration. I am too but frankly ending birthright citizenship is reactionary. Its a slippery slope and these things NEVER end with just that. Mark my words, they will make naturalized citizenship like permanent residency in the long run whereby you can take it away or it has an expiration date you have to renew. One of our founders, Alexander Hamilton was not born in the U.S. This is NOT the way to address the illegal immigration issue. We need to deal with it from its roots. The blame for the mess when it comes right down to it, are ourselves. We vote in a government from Congress to the White House that puts a band aid on the issue, avoids dealing wtih the realities of it and is too scared politically to do what needs to be done.

Email was first deemed the same as regular mail. The government had no right to read it as they would mail that comes to your house. Same with phone calls from your cell phone. Now that super computer reads your emails (after yahoo and the other providers sold us out) to determine if certain words are said that may be attributable to someone organizing a terrorist strike. The kicker is since we know it and if we fight it the same government through the court says 'well, since you know we do it, there is no expectation of privacy'. You couldn't make it up. Parts of the Patriots Act is flat out unconstitutional. No two ways about it. During the financial crisis the Treasury Secretary and the Fed Chairman under Bush initially tried to give themselves powers that pretty much said, we can do what ever we need to 'fix' the problem and we can not be held legally responsible for any action. Litterally they wanted powers without any consequences whatsoever. The fact they didn't get it doesn't prove something like that couldn't happen again. They were damned close to getting that kind of power. What some of us don't realize is an emergency is exactly what the government needs to usurp our civil liberties and 99% will go along willingly for the sake of expediency. Going back to concept of Imminent Domain, we've slowly eroded our civil liberties over time in the name of progress or security. I'd love to ask the founders what they think of the country now and if it fits their vision of what they aspired to. I truly wonder if they would like what they see today.

Steve...I'm too lazy to look up all of the EO's' date= but this one is tooooooooo easy. After removing one's tin hat, it could easily be assumed that the detention facility is for wetback processing/holding pending deportation. :content: HH[/quote] Granted, these facilities may be being built for one purpose but as often is the case, they can (and sometimes are) used for other purposes. The goverment has always comandeered facilities for emergency uses. Understandable in the vast majority of cases. A football field for example to process many people in a disaster. The government will find loopholes when it serves its purpose. Cuba for the terrorists for example. I will admit to being one that doesn't trust the government and think it always has our best interests.

yep. The following executive orders, acts, etc, some going back to Kennedy, can be used to circumvent civil liberties in the even of a national emergency. Executive Order #12656: Appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. Executive Order #1103: Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. Executive Order #11005: Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private. Executive Order #10990: Allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. Executive Order #10995: Allows the government to seize and control the “communication mediaâ€Â. Executive Order #10997: Allows the government to take over all electric power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals, public and private. Executive Order #10998: Allows the government to take over all food supplies and resources, public and private, including farms and equipment Executive Order #11921: Allows the government to control the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined National Emergency. It also provides that when a state emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the declaration for a period of six months. Executive Order #11051: Grants authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. Executive Order #11000: Authorizes the government to mobolize American civilians into work brigades under government supervision. The Patriot Act: Third-party holders f your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosques records can be searched without your knowledge and consent. Allows Law Enforcement to conduct warrantless searches of yoour records, place of residence and confiscate your personal property without your knowledge or consent. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003: Instructs Government to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at “detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activitiesâ€Â. The Military Commissions Act: Strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals of anyone held in US custody as an “unlawful enemy combatantâ€Â. Defines an Unlawful Enemy combatant as “an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.†The definition of “Hostilities†is broad enough to include any American citizen who is acting in a way the President deems “hostile†to the United States. Prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in an US court. National Security Presidential directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidentual Directive 20. Signed by President Bush in May. 2007 NSPD/HSPD 51, and 20: The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President’s lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies Allows the President to control and coordinate all three branches of government in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergencyâ€Â. “Catastrophic Emergency means any incident, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions†Kellog Brown and Root recently was awarded a 385 million dollar open ended contract by the Department of Homeland Security. Which provides for establishing “temporary detention†facilities and “progressing areas†on American soil. As for FEMA I've read that a lot of its funding has been used for the " construction of underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency – foreign or domestic"

No. If you believe this you have never worked for a large company as a junior guy. Again, you are watching too many movies and projecting that to the real world. The problem was the focus of the FBI was on other things. With regards to your point. Yes, I agree they were focused on other issue (I think it was narcotics at the time but not sure). However, its is not supposed to be their SOLE purpose. The FBI covers all matters of national security. Someone deemed it not important enough. Why don't we know that someone? Her direct boss told her not to pursue and said he was told by someone higher. Why don't we know who the specific person or persons were. I have worked for very large corporations. I worked for one that was a 40 billion dollar subsidiary of AIG, who were mammoth at the time. I know about things getting lost as go up the chain of command. I was a first line manager and told not to take actions in my department that I thought were uwise. He told me verbally and I knew it would be my word against him so I followed it up with an email to him saying 'Per our discussion today in your office, I won't pursue..blah, blah, blah'. I documented other e mails, etc. so when it hit the fan and I knew my ass was covered. I had a boss that was eventually fired for that and other mishaps in other departments under his auspices. She (the FBI agent) had proof she alerted supeiors. There were other reports as well I thought I at the time like Israeli intel being concerned. The dismissal of the alert was particularly onerous given that we suffered the World Trade bombing in the early '90s by a similear such group. So, it wasn't like it was the first time.

No. You have been watching too many movies. Hey Corinthian' date=' thanks for your response, I'll address your responses individually. I do watch too many movies..lol..I also do some reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency [b']Lying to Congress[/b] Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has stated that the CIA repeatedly misled the Congress since 2001 about waterboarding and other torture, though Pelosi admitted to being told about the programs.[106][107] Six members of Congress have claimed that Director of CIA Leon Panetta admitted that over a period of several years since 2001 the CIA deceived Congress, including affirmatively lying to Congress. Some congressmen believe that these "lies" to Congress are similar to CIA lies to Congress from earlier periods. Covert programs hidden from Congress On July 10, 2009, House Intelligence subcommittee Chairwoman Representative Jan Schakowsky (D, IL) announced the termination of an unnamed CIA covert program described as "very serious" in nature which had been kept secret from Congress for eight years.

The problem is there are numerous things the CIA does NOT tell the Congress or even the White House. Sometimes they hide things under the 'national security' tag which doesn't work most of the time but can be dragged out on occasion as being so covert and secret it can't inform about specifics if at all. The FBI could have stopped 911. One of the great mysteries is who specificaly said to the agent who was noticed the hijackers taking air line lessons and other suspicious acts and was told not to pursue it. It must have been someone important because when it was investigated everyone above her said 'I was told not to' but we were never told whom. My guess it was someone big because typically there is a fall guy in these things. The problem was the focus of the FBI was on other things. Since 911 the fear of another attack has given the government or specifically its law enforcement and intel agencies a freer reighn in doing whatever it likes. Its chaos that gives license. Just like the financial crisis. The people allowed the government to do things it wouldn't have otherwise. The same chaos will finallly let the government do things its always wanted to do like tax the internet. Posse comitatus, etc. will all be 'temporarily ceased' (that's what they'll say) in a major crisis. FEMA seems the likely agency to effect. It practically has powers to suspend civil liberties and rights and impart martial law if the event is serious enough.

The CIA doesn't operate in a vacuum. It is accountable...on paper at least. Congress authorizes the money for all government functions. The CIA's budget is secret as far as I know but there have been leaks that its over 40 billion a year. There are also Congressesional committees that are privy to what they are doing. They are controlled, at least organizationally by the Executive Branch (President) by the chain of command. The problem to me at least is that so much of their work is deemed secret and under 'national security'. Its how they've hidden things in the past but it got tougher for them to do that when acts that were either deemed improper, immoral, unethical or illegal came to light. Since 911 though I think they got a freer hand than before 911. Just my guess. I think (but not sure), I am like most Americans with regards to them (and the FBI, and most law enforcement and intelligence agencies we have). You are glad to have them but fear them. You want them to stop the 'bad guys', stop terrorism, etc., but also you dread the day you are ever the focus of their attention. You have a feeling that even if you're innocent, if they deem you a threat you are f*cked. To some extent what they do overseas to a lot of Americans is like like the old adage about bacon. You enjoy it but don't want to see or know how its made. If the CIA needs to get their hands dirty in a 'ends justifying the means' situation that ultimately protects us, a lot of folks would just want to stay ignorant. Personally, I'd rather we do things above board. Yes, there are gray areas. However, I'd rather operate in the lighter part of that gray area if push comes to shove.

I've been saying Obama has governed as a moderate or centrist with a slight left of center slant and the left don't like it because they thought he'd be solidly left. The right hates him no matter what. Even if he did all the things the right wants, if its not a Republican doing it then it doesn't matter. Its about power of the party for both sides. Not the actual actions. There are southern dems who do things more right of center than Republicans elsewhere but are still not liked by any Republican. Same with some Republicans who are like Rockerfeller Repubs but will still not be liked ever by the left. Rudy is no far rightwinger for example, his stance on immigration for example is very much in the Democrat template but he is not liked by a lot of Dems and a lot on the left for no other reason he is a Republican. BOTH parties say they want what is best for the country but I am now certain they just want raw naked power for their party and if they have to modify their platform to retain power so be it. Obama is f*cked though I think for the time being because he is not as strong with his base in Dems and is hated almost as much as Clinton was by the right. I actually think Clinton was hated for being successful. To a lesser degree Reagon to the left. Both enjoyed a great economy but were hated by the opposition in good times.