While this is cute and touching and all that, I must point out the total math fail in the media reaction here. What are the odds that two people who passed each other at Disney in childhood should be later married? Pretty damn high I'd wager. In fact there must be dozens of such couples in the world. The place has been there for decades, attracting millions from around the world - this story was inevitable. If one of them had been from North Korea I'd be a little more impressed, but geez, most Canadian kids go to Disney in Florida at least once. Of course NOW this could never happen due to post 9/11 border security...

^Amen, sister.

The sad thing is that we're making this country worse and worse as time rolls on. We're making in more difficult for our children.

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

Thomas Jefferson

If the gov't became TOO large and began to impose upon my privacy and the way I raise my family, if they tried to take my gun away and no longer allowed me to defend myself, if they raise income tax to more than 35% of my income, if they take away my right to free speech, if they centralize more power to one branch of the government, if they continue to create laws and policies that depress economic growth, if my vote no longer counted, if the government failed (once again) to keep our borders secure, if the government interfered in the practice of my religion, etc...

If the government continues to flirt with revocation of our God given freedoms, we might have to do something. Does that make me a dangerous "right wing extremist?"

Nope. Not even close. I'm a conservative ...and I remember who has the power.

"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

-MLK

You say the Arab world is supporting Palestinian efforts but don't acknowledge the large military and political help the Israelis receive from the US.

I acknowledge it, but I consider it non-germaine to the topic. The issue is whether countries have the right to defend their citizens? In Isreal's case, there is a large population of armed partisans, geurilla fighters, terrorists, and agent provokateurs right at the door. Sadly, among the population of bad guys are a lot of innocents who don't have anywhere else to go. It is grossly unfair.

But suppose Isreal makes nice, gives Gaza to the Palestinians, pulls down the walls, and disbands the border security. Now the Palestinians can move freely. What happens next? History has proven for the past 60 years that if Isreal doesn't have walls, checkpoints, buffer zones, and blockades then they get car explosions, suicide bombers, and dead citizens. Past treaties made MANY concessions to the Palestinains but the violence never stopped.

Clearly some of you are of the mind that the Isreali government should put its citizens at risk from the bad guys so as to relieve the pressure on the innocent Palestinians. You may also believe that doing this will make the bad guys less prone to violence, and make the Palestinian people in general 'more favorable' to Isreal. I would ask you to supply the logic and evidence that leads you to that conclusion, because it runs counter to over 50 years of evidence.

The kicker is that you want to put the most incompetent organization on the planet (the U.N.) in charge of Isreal's security. No one in thier right mind could believe that is a good idea.

Personally I still think my solution is best. 1. American gives Rhode Island to the Palestinians and relocates them. 2. Italy gives Sicily to Isreal and relocates them. 3. Jerusalem and all the surrounding region is turned into a historical landmark where no one is allowed to live.

^ I'm hoping he expresses his entire platform in this format in the coming weeks.

I'm going to say his positions are as follows:

National sovereignty: We aren't giving it up. We make our own choices about our country's actions, but we should cooperate with international bodies on things we think are important.

Border security: We need to improve it, but we should have a path to citizenship for those who're already here illegally, and should crack down on businesses that hire "undocumented workers". More here.

Checks and Balances: He wants to restore them (no specifics, other than he's going not going to follow Bush's policy of subverting/ignoring them).

Executive orders that bypass the Constituion: He's made a definite commitment that one of his first acts as President would be to order a review of all standing executive orders, so he can rescind any that violate the bounds of the Constitution (or law).

On putting in preventative safeguards he hasn't said much, though Biden has been making comments about following through with the extant investigations into wrongdoings committed by the Bush administration.

That last bit is a key issue for us netroots people too, and there's already been a lot of vigorous agreement that we're not content to "let bygones be bygones".

I'd like to hear his views and ideas on national sovereignty, border security, checks and balances in the government, reversing executive orders that bypass the Constitution, complete senate and judicial departmental reform and installing safeguards and standardization to prevent election fraud in the future.

>> ^my15minutes:
gosh!
how did i know the first issue Dobbs would mention was border security & illegal immigration?!?


Because it's an extremely important issue and it's one of Dobbs primary focal points.


I'm surprized that he's the only one focused on this issue and I commend him for he has no fear in engaging in critical thinking and debates on it.

gosh!
how did i know the first issue Dobbs would mention was border security & illegal immigration?!?

the bubble bailouts are a good issue for lib's, though.
because the dem's and rep's could've prevented much of the fraudulent speculation in housing and energy. they didn't.

and now the vultures are circling over Lehman Bros, expecting another bailout like that of Bear Stearns. and once again, the reasoning will be that they're "too big to be allowed to fail", even though they fattened themselves up illegally, for that very purpose.

this is like a billionaire, losing their entire fortune in a casino, and then expecting the pit boss to write off the debt. why? because then the billionaire will be rich again, and keep gambling.
forgetting the fact that the casino already has your billions now. you expect them to give it back to you, to bet the same money again?

sorry, no. tough shit.

economics = basic math + grand larceny

Bob Barr on the issues:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/spending-economy/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/entitlement-programs/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/energy-policy/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/privacy-surveillance/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/iraq-war/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/foreign-intervention-foreign-bases/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/veterans/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/health-care/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/education-home-schooling/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/property-rights-eminent-domain/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/second-amendment/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/taxes/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/border-security-immigration/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/racism-equality/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/marriage/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/monetary-policy/

What I wonder about Ron "Paulicy" is, if we knew there were terrorist training camps wherever in the Middle East and that they were training to infiltrate and attack America, we couldn't declare war on the nation containing the terrorists, so Ron wouldn't attack the terrorists. So that would mean his course of action would be to hope border security would be up to par and/or that we could discover and catch them on our soil before their strike?

Clearly I'm not as versed in Paul's views as many others here, but for those of you who are, please enlighten me. Obviously my example is a pretty specific one, but I'm just looking for a general bird's eye of his ideas.

Well, I sat back and watched the debate rage for a while, but I'll throw in my 2 cents now. Best to start with the most recent comments by GW. First lets talk about usage of terms:

Jihadists are programmed to murder as many innocents as possible.

Jihadist is definitely a misnomer here. Since "jihad" means struggle, we need to consider its broader religious implications. According to the Koran, jihad is used to fight oppression and serve justice. It is specifically an armed struggle and therefore should abide by the rules set in the Koran limiting it. That means that children, women, and non-combatants are not legitimate targets. I see what you were getting at, but choose a better term so as not to denigrate the moderate religion of Islam.

Secondly, you are working from a false assumption that everyone detained at Guantanamo Bay is in some way a terrorist. That is unfounded and unverifiable thanks to their lack of access to lawyers and courts. And if they are terrorists who have been irreparably dehumanized, that does not mean they are not humans. Regarding and treating them in such a way only serves to dehumanize ourselves.

Thirdly, this nation's founding fathers were a collection of men who, by modern standards, illegally broke into and invaded this land and then declared themselves citizens of it. I'm not criticizing them for it (though there is plenty of criticism to be made) because they ultimately formed a type of government that has served as a beacon of freedom to the world for more than 200 years. However, what they would be truly aghast at in our modern society is the slow erosion of first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendment rights. I'm sure they would see those as more pressing than attempts to grant those rights to a larger set of the populace.

Finally, regarding what this thread is actually about: immigration (both legal and illegal). There has not really been a net change in the amount of immigration into this country over the past 100 years. Instead, what we have seen is a tightening of laws which make legal immigration possible. Migration has been recognized as one of the fundamental contributors to changing demographics. It is likewise accepted that it has always occurred and will continue to occur as long as humans roam this planet. You can declare it legal or you can declare it illegal but it will not stop. Building walls, militarizing our borders, and performing mass deportations won't stop a force as large as this. Rather than react in a xenophobic manner which only serves to isolate specific communities of people, the United States needs to make more legal immigration possible. Doing so will serve many purposes.

First of all, it will encourage greater integration of existing immigrant communities because they will have greater faith in our society and government. Second, it will reduce the net downward effect illegal immigration has on wages by making those workers eligible for the minimum wage. Third, it will increase national security by having greater border security and confidence in those people which enter the country. Finally, it would help to reaffirm (or reestablish) the United States position in the world as a country of compassion, a leader in human rights, and a people with true entrepreneurial spirit.

When faced with an unstoppable force you can directly confront it and be crushed beneath it, relegated to the dust bin of history. Or you can adapt to it, turn its great power to your service, and benefit all.

Despite Bush's betrayal of border security and liberalesque spending sprees, history will prove him right on Iraq.

We're going to have to maim or kill every last one of these Middle East tyrants sooner or later, as well as bloody the noses of China and Russia. Might as well do it before the former have The Bomb and the latter two get too chesty.