Jump to content
It appears, Scott, that your definition (implicit) differs from Kevin's group? Before going much further it would be very helpful to have agreement on the problem being solved before jumping to solution options! Please take a crack at stating how you see the problem (pretty much implied in your offered obvious solution) for us and Kevin's consideration! Thanks.
A quick read of Kevin and Frank's comments makes it very clear that there is no definition of the problem, nor is there a plan to develop such a definition. My very strong suggestion, per Kevin's request, is to change that schedule he provided, and spend the time now to arrive at a succinct problem definition to be shared with the community in the next month. Then, we will be able to better understand the pros and cons of each option! Good Luck and thank you for your efforts.
George--So you are saying that the sanctuary cities are not protecting any known criminals?
Scott--Suggest you are already hypothesizing about the second or third or even fourth stage. If you listen carefully and think about it, deportations will begin with known criminals, then there will be securing our borders (the wall or whatever other physical, electronic, human contrivance), which may well go forward in parallel. What happens after that remains to be seen. No need to try to move the conversation to kids who may or may not be US citizens now, as an attempt to divert / delay the tactics from dealing with known criminals and border security! In getting out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging it deeper.
Scott--A thought, can China become energy independent by any route other than renewables?
Thanks. Actually it was the Declaration of Independence that made clear that we have certain rights coming from our creator, and that we as individuals and a society grant to government the exercise of 'some' of those rights. Government only exists because we grant it the right to exist in a particular form. (Parenthetically, it is a continuing mystery to me why so many people seem to be willing to give up those rights willy-nilly, for unicorns.) The Constitution was, concisely, (nine pages I think!) a very thoughtful expression of how a federal government could work within the framework of those granted rights. You use 'big' where I use 'scope' to describe my concern with the federal government. The Constitution expressly limits scope (and sure limit scope and size is concomitantly limited) but thanks to a broad brush income tax, deficit spending, and human nature, the folks in DC have been able to expand the scope well beyond the originally intended limits. You and others are calling attention to the problems with the recently passed kindergarten mil-levy, with an already mentioned recall vote a possibility. In a community like ours this is a real threat and could work to keep the powers that be on the straight and narrow. At the federal level with the huge debt, without seeming consequences, with a fairly large portion of us not paying income tax, and with the apparent ability to bury 'kindergarten mil-levies' in any proposed legislation, you and I and the rest of the population are left without recourse. Many of our states are the size of (both economically and population-wise) of countries which seem to be able to manage their affairs. A narrower scope at the federal level will keep the government out of your and my personal business, and waste less too. Regards.
Scott--A very 'progressive' view of the Constitution. The republican government created by our Founders was an extremely limited one and highly constrained. Read Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states. We have drifted very far from that principle. We must go back to it. A thought for you and those addressing the supposed Kindergarten mil levy as being less about all day kindergarten and more about creating a pool of cash for undefined purpose. We see you and Ken M. and others actively challenging. The bigger the central government (a) the more likely we have 'kindergarten' funds in DC and (b) the more difficult it is to challenge them. The ONLY course available to us, if we are to be relevant, is to shrink the scope of the federal government.
You're saying that Hillary and Mr. Obama and Michelle and all those others spent the last several days in Philly to get the college educated voters?
Scott--Interesting post election analysis. Please provide us with the peer reviewed articles, books, you have read supporting your brief review. Thank you.
Scott and Bill (below)--A thought, look at the county by county vote map and then think about the wonderful prescience of our Founders!
Last login: Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |