Well, it's done

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

No where does it say they can regulate immigration. Doesn't say they can have an Air Force in there either. It doesn't say you have the right to a fair trial or a jury of your peers.

The lawsuites are grandstanding. I doubt anything will come of them.

I believe the Constitution does require the Fed Gov to secure the borders. One of the few duties required of them, and one of the few which they apparently have no desire to enforce.

Chas

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I have never understood why someone would walk into a room and intermediately pick a fight but your are not the first.

That should tell you something. What's the common denominator, in the room? You.

Originally Posted by noonereal

There is no accounting for human behavior.

That's the point that I just made.

Originally Posted by noonereal

BTW I posted no rhetoric just frustration which I admitted to and apologized for.

If that's the slanted way that you see it, none of us are in a vacuum. I, too, indicated that I could have been, "less of an ass," in an edit of a previous post.

Originally Posted by noonereal

(I have hundreds of posts here on this issue you have one and you tell me I have a shallow critique?)

In sum, related to what I've read?

Yes.

But that's neither here nor there: verbiage is not analysis and there'll be plenty of time to sort through that.

Grand scheme? Who cares.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Charles

I believe the Constitution does require the Fed Gov to secure the borders. One of the few duties required of them, and one of the few which they apparently have no desire to enforce.

Chas

I grok your meaning, but that is an impossible duty: which means "not trying to" -- regardless of desire -- is, probably, the best measure as a Real World solution.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Zeke

That should tell you something. What's the common denominator, in the room? You.



That's the point that I just made.



If that's the slanted way that you see it, none of us are in a vacuum. I, too, indicated that I could have been, "less of an ass," in an edit of a previous post.



In sum, related to what I've read?

Yes.

But that's neither here nor there: verbiage is not analysis and there'll be plenty of time to sort through that.

Grand scheme? Who cares.

I thought we already established that you are a rude bastard?

Do you have anything to discuss?

Why do you feel a bill that never considered a single payer, has no public option, does almost nothing for the Medicare donut problem, compels every American to purchase health insurance without providing for adequate protections for those compelled is a good "start?"

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I thought we already established that you are a rude bastard?

You've asserted, nothing more. Do you own a mirror?

Originally Posted by noonereal

Do you have anything to discuss?

I've been doing so, it seems to annoy you.

Originally Posted by noonereal

Why do you feel a bill that never considered a single payer, has no public option, does almost nothing for the Medicare donut problem, compels every American to purchase health insurance without providing for adequate protections for those compelled is a good "start?"

Because it passed, did not weaken the Party, and is a key component of gradualism.

Basically, it had the potential to be Waterloo.

It was, but the Republicans were the French.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Because it passed, did not weaken the Party, and is a key component of gradualism.

Basically, it had the potential to be Waterloo.

It was, but the Republicans were the French.

We really do not disagree very much on this. The big difference seems to be that I consider this a failure and you feel it is a success.

What about the points I raised?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by noonereal

We really do not disagree very much on this. The big difference seems to be that I consider this a failure and you feel it is a success.

You're right: consider my attitude adjusted.

Originally Posted by noonereal

What about the points I raised?

That it didn't address the actual problem?

Quite valid.

[Charles]

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Charles

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas

Where's a coffee-spitting smiley when you need one?

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas

I just had a lot of fun visiting the in-laws. My father-in-law was a Reagan Democrat and a small-business owner. He went without health care coverage for a long time. He despised Bush and voted for Obama. He is really pissed at the GOP now. It took a little work, but I got him turned around.

Regards,

D-Ray