dayman

lol sufficiently strange response, touche

What that operation was and what people were referring to as it are not the same thing. When you read the article there was nothing to cover up, so what was he covering up? Did he personally know of the surveillance operation? Did he know of Dodson's insubordination? Did he know the details that came across Hurley's desk? "Do you know about fast and furious" is a nonsensical question. The entire thing is a cluster !@#$ that honestly stems from weak gun laws in the first place. It's not wonder the extreme right and the gun lobby wanted to get out in front of this and make it a conspiracy that they let this happen to impose more gun restrictions...since it happened against the ATF's wishes as a direct result of weak gun laws.

It sheds light on why there was so much confusion. Basically seems to be on whole a long drawn out struggle w/ the ATF trying to arrest straw purchasers, the prosecutors said they couldn't over and over b/c their analysis was that under the current law they couldn't...then there was all kinds of internal strife within the ATF and even with one particular prosecutor. Seems like weak laws meets prosecutors who won't pull the trigger b/c they don't want to lose and the ATF is sitting there watching meth-addicts and 18 year old unemployed kids spend $100K on automatic weapons.

Is this your Ted Nugent moment?

It's a huge article but you should just read it. I shouldn't even paste anything the entire thing is complicated...it's too long and involved for any pasting to be anything but selective. It's worth noting in there you clearly see that the guns that killed Terry were not sold by the government. Meh I just was trying to delete the post below and the whole thing is gone now...anyway here's the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

The amendment would allow them to regulate campaign finance. In other words, regulate what you want as well if Congress so chooses. The specifics would be left to the future...point is they would be able to.

Stop holding back, tell us how you really feel.

Probably just worded something like "Congress can regulate the financing of political campaigns" ... and let the specifics go from there up to Congress.

Hey, regardless of who is president we can't go backwards in our reform effort so it's good for all of us.

LOL can't wait to here how Romney will save the pre-existing condition crowd w/ out a mandate or single payer..."high risk pools!!!" LOL...I can see it now...Romney on stage "We going to reform healthcare, close tax loop holes to raise revenue, and put a pinkberry on the moon just don't ask me how before the election!" Obama: "I'm going to march the ACA zombie to the door of the GOP convention and we are going to eat their children next term!" On a serious note though I will look forward to reading the opinion and inevitable dissent(s). Should be interesting.

In less than 24 hours politics will go nuts, regardless of outcome. As we all know the mandate will likely go down prompting republicans to go nuts about a Constitutional law lecturer who was stupid enough to pass their own idea....then maybe the rest will go down or probably at least the preexisting injury mandate prompting the left to go nuts about the Supreme Court hurting the people and being politically charged...they will call to arms saying it's time to energize and get people covered once and for all....the right will arm up saying this will not happen again and Obama can't be allowed another term to take away their freedom and destroy American medicine...and all will be well in the world of the daily political news cycle. Personally...I can't wait. I expect nothing less than absolute retardation from many politicians and pundits on both sides and complete idiocy here on the board as well. Don't let me down gentlemen.

Keep in mind everybody calling you a douche is also a douche, so don't take it too personally. It's like a giant nasty vagina in here.

My God at that article B-Man...pay attention to what you read...I wouldn't read editorials from that website anymore. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand the holding of the case and goes on to say things that are straight up false: Federal authorities will no longer take phone calls from Arizona officers making immigration inquiries about suspected illegals picked up in the course of committing crimes, perhaps some quite spectacular ones. LOL.

That's true for a lot of white people as well. Cops suck when they are bothering you (and are awesome if they are helping you)...just life. Also...how many check are they really going to do w/ out the other provisions? An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; § 5© makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; § 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person "the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States"; and § 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims. Emboldened portions thrown out. If they have reasonable suspicion (not due to prohibition in previous posts) you are an illegal alien, they can check it w/ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the spot and quickly and then report you if you are but even then you just...walk away...how much police time are they ultimately going to want to waste on this when they can't do the things they wanted to do in the first place as a result of the check? And in any event there some fairly strong language that should prove promising for all foreigners in the opinion regardless of status. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. ... The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled. Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws. See, e.g., Brief for Argentina et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 588-589 (1952). Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad. See Brief for Madeleine K. Albright et al. as Amici Curiae 24-30. It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States. .... Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation. On May 24, 2012, at one of this Nation's most distinguished museums of history, a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem. There they took the oath to become American citizens. The Smithsonian, News Release, Smithsonian Citizenship Ceremony Welcomes a Dozen New Americans (May 24, 2012), online at http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases. These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf [47] of the country when required by law. 8 CFR § 337.1(a) (2012). The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here. The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver's license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution"; and § 2(B) must be "implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens." If she's driving she should have a license. If she's profiled it's illegal. And if the check is unreasonable in time it's violative of the constitution as well. It's ok, she'll be fine. And if it's slightly more annoying to be hispanic in Arizona than other states, that's just Arizona. That's America.

LOL Jan Brewer can attempt to spin it anyway she wants. "They" didn't win. They lost.

So in other news Arizona law diced up and largely marginalized.

How is this political?

And look at the stuff we say in our primaries and even the general. Is abortion ever illegal? (just to use the most direct one that is always talked about that effects freedoms) I mean he may instate law modeled after Islam but they have yet to elect a parliament (it was a close run off and other interests got significant numbers in the general), they have yet to write a constitution, the military is basically still in control as of now...it's a "wait and see." They are the Muslim Brotherhood though I mean expect some Islam stuff that wouldn't fly here...but that's their choice and they can work it out through democracy. He's not an islamic dictator ... if he can get Islamic policy done through a legit government then that's just what they want over there.

Also another optimist thought...Muslim Brotherhood does keep its promise and entertains legitimate democracy (helped along by a weary military) and all the sudden you have a high profile Middle Eastern country with heavy Islamic overtones engaging in democracy. Islam getting on board w/ democracy (stable one) is the ultimate long term goal in that area of the world so it is an opportunity.

ya that sums it up to me 3rd...Obama and the Dems were always the "more progay/immigration" guys...it's not really turning around and running the other way agility it's more like going from jogging to running agility

The gay thing maybe helps energize them so they show up more and a little in fundraising but doesn't do much as I see it. Immigration order was a little more clever IMO, he was going to win Hispanic vote either way (most agree anyway...certainly after the tone of the GOP primary) but it could help him block creeping efforts where Romney pulled closer to 50/50. And it does put him in a position where it brings it to the front momentarily prompting Romney to give non-answers as he straddles his party's staunch "wall building no-amnesty/work status base" with the long term goal of including Hispanics in the party and short term goal of not losing by such a wide margin. May also effect VP choice but that's speculative at best. May also cause some independents to raise eyebrows at responses if they are clumsy (again minial point). In any event the executive order was probably a political win at least early at this point. Either way until the conventions this thing hasn't even started yet so there's time for Romney to be stodgy and unprincipled on immigration so long as he figures it out within the next month or so. Plus let's be honest here if he has to go against his base more than he would like to this isn't abortion...there's a little more slack on this one (at least I would like to think).

Long term I think it could be an assumption to make. Like everyone here I'm no expert in internal Egyptian affairs but in terms of the next 1 or 2 years I wouldn't expect things to go nuts. As the first Muslim brotherhood guy (and first president period) he knows what's up...he won't try to impose too much radical stuff on everybody and he's said he doesn't want an Islamic democracy he just wants a democracy (whatever that means it sounds better than Islamic democracy). I don't get the impression he's too crazy despite American impulse to cringe at "Muslim Brotherhood." Also I'm pretty optimistic so I'm thinking we'll see a Turkey type situation. The obvious wildcard is how the nation as a whole reacts to democracy in action when they don't like policy made (even if it's not what we think of as crazy policy). I wouldn't expect massive oppression of women and radicalized terror in the next 2 years as a direct result of the election alone. In fact I think all in all things will be better under him than the holdover candidate from the last regime.

Well it's not likely they strike down the mandate only...they may not throw the whole thing out but they'll remove some other stuff with the mandate if they remove the mandate.

Nobody played better football than Percy Harvin. Period. He was absolutely unstoppable. With him: 2 championships. Without him (and everything else the same): 0 championships. There is no doubt. When he left, nobody ever replaced him. He is the most dynamic player to ever come from that school and to compare him to spiller or bush or anyone like that just shows ignorance. Percy Harvin is a straight game changer. Hell of a football player. Would be our best WR.