<p>leah377 -
"generally, ideas introduced with "no offense" are actually pretty offensive. yours is no exception."
No, its a statement on reality. Reality sometimes offends senstative individuals, because reality is many times offensive. No offense is a statement meaning it's not a personal statement, just how things are.</p>
<p>"i'd always thought empathy was a moral. guess i was wrong."
Clearly stated "that empathic". Empathy can get in the way of enforcing laws. When empathy interfers with running an efficient judicial system, I would rather have someone dedicated to the law, not humanity. Morals is another word for ETHICS, as in knowing the difference between right and wrong. Empathy is a FEELING. </p>
<p>hyperJulie -"The clause that states that someone born on US soil is a citizen is the same clause that makes you and I citizens."
Actually "The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[2] although it has generally been assumed that they are", which shows that those born with 2 non citizen parents do not gain citizenship under the same legislation as a child born to parents who are US citizens. Article 1 of the 14th amendment was meant to give citizenship to slaves born in the US, not to those who were born here to non citizens. Look up the case of Elk v Wilkins. Read up on the 14th Amendment, its purpose, and SC rulings on the topic. The above quote of yours is COMPLETELY wrong.</p>
<p>"We can't take away people's right to citizenship, so thus overburdening the foster care system must be the answer, in your opinion. Is that worth getting rid of a population of illegal immigrants? Furthermore, what problems are these illegal immigrants causing for the average American? "
1) Non citizens do not have the same rights as Americans. We are not taking away anyones rights by clearly defining and upholding the intentions of the 14th Amendment. We are not take ANYONE's "right" to citizenship away, because the naturalization process would still exist. Once again, you can't take away someones "rights" if they are aliens. I have family in both Texas and California, and the problems caused by aliens are immense. They are somehow able to overflow our public school systems(many schools DON'T ask for greencards), forcing schools to hire teachers who are fluent in spanish. God forbid the aliens learn english. The overcrowding has effected my cousin. The schools are so crowded in her area by aliens that her school offers a program where kids pick up their work weekly and do it at home, because they simply do not have enough room.
Labor issues are clear- illegals make it difficult for blue collar workers to find work with contractors, because illegals do not recieve minium wage.
Aliens are committing crimes, not on the same level as other ethnic groups. My tax dollars pay for their stay.</p>
<p>"Reagan engaged in deficit spending all throughout his Presidency. He very significantly increased the national debt over the course of his administration. Also, why does it make any sense, when the middle and lower classes are struggling, to give money to the richest?"
Supply side economics. You're not "giving" money to the richest, you are giving them TAX BREAKS. Tax breaks for American companies allows them to hire more workers and invest in new technologies, and to survive in an increasingly large global reliance. It allows an American company, such as New Balance, to compete with Nike, and keep its labor for in the US.Reagan got rid of needless agencies, and used more bloack grants. Pushed powers back to the states. Reagan cut income taxes on the middle and low class.
reagan came in when there was a gas crisis, while we were in the cold war, and talks of a recession, and bolstered the economy. Supply side economics and de regulation helped cut unemployment from nearly 11% to about 3.5%
"Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency."</p>
<p>colormehappy- "Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority, argued that a woman's decision to end her pregnancy is protected by a broad right of privacy, which though not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, previously had been found by the court to exist within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments, as well as the penumbras, or shadows, of the Bill of Rights."
5th no self incrimination, 4th Amendment right to privacy. I personally feel the 14th could be used to overturn Roe v Wade. The life, liberty property clause and equal protection could be argued to protect the fetus' "right to live". I view the privacy protection in 1, 4 and 5 more important in cementing the pro choice view.</p>
<p>"In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau found that women earned only 75.5 cents for every dollar men earned. That seems like a pretty large discrepancy to me. Just because an issue doesn't directly affect me doesn't seem like a good reason not to care. We have to care because when issues do affect us, we expect others to care. "
Because every poll is 100% accurate(sarcasm)... I heard is was $.80 most recently. That poll was also cinducted 4 years ago, and is very close to being outdated. When did I say I DIDN'T care? It's just way down there on my list. Way way down. After the whole undeclared war in Iraq, Afghanistan, foriegn dependency on oil, economy, foriegn affairs, the UN, China stealing our "intellectual property", our way too stron alliance with Isreal, Immigration, education, cost of college, social security, re vising welfare requirements, ending hate crime legislation etc,. Equal pay effects a lot less people than the above issues. </p>
<p>"Maybe I am naive, but I don't see bitter cynicism as a better alternative. This is not the time for a "do nothing president." At the risk of being flamed again, I will stand by my assertion: this is the time for change."
Would it KILL obamanites to not use change or hope? It is better to have a guy in office to make slow, moderate changes than a radical, partisan divisive man when the economy is in a more fragile state. I am a realist. I understand no matter who is elected, things are not going to be perfect or even ideal for many. Change will occurr regardless of who is elected. If you are so desperate for change, do something yourself, don't rely on a politician. Write your national and state congressman, work on a campaign, start a movement, but do something instead of blaming people/ideas/establishments. The truth is in America, one person can make such a huge difference, and I have witnessed this myself, but for whatever reason people tend not to do something themselves.</p>
<p>Actually, Bush graduated from Yale.
BO just doesn't seem like a true unifier to me. Maybe if he didn't make racist remarks I would have a different opinion, or if he weren't so dishonest. Or if he actually wasn't corrupted. I just view him as another politician banking in on a message that seems appealing. Especially due to his ambition led motives which underscored his supposed "message". His time in Chi was actually a bit sketchy, especially his involvement with ACORN(a non profit I nearly worked for...so I know the type of shady practices they have been known for. Before the PA primary, they intentionally filed fraudulent voter registration forms. ACORN has become infamous for proving voting corrpution by creating it.). Also, the way he won his seat in Ill. is quite interesting if you never heard.</p>