Speaking of a waste of typing.   Don't you have an Obama poster on the ceiling over your bed to stare at dreamily, sana?  Don't let me keep you.  

The only concession I would make is this: as far as I'm concerned, any parent that put their child on a plane forfeited his/her rights as parents, so I wouldn't have the slightest issue declaring this a humanitarian crisis, to which the normal rules of immigration do not apply, including those allowing family members to join them later on. Then I'd let each kid decide for himself after 3 years (or right now if they wish) to return to his own country.

I'm sure I'll lose on this issue, because who the fuck cares about a bunch of kids who never did anything wrong. Much better for the rightwing wing sick southerners to bleat bleat bleat about how we have to toss them all up.

Honestly, what do I care what Obama thinks? Did you mistake me for a supporter of his? I support issues: not people. I don't care what he says, this contemptible treatment of kids is inexcusable. If he didn't want to allow them in, then he shouldn't have, should have told the countries doing it that the planes would be escorted back to their airport by the USAF. But now that he let them in, they're here, and it would be the height of Republicanness to take out our issues with immigration on kids whose only crime lies in being born.

When's the last time, I made obeisance at Obama's altar?

The U.S. did this for obvious political reasons. If Russia were to kidnap a U.S. citizen, the US wouldn't care much. They have a decorated US marine, Andrew Tahmooressi rotting in a Mexican prison on BS charges. The state dept. or Obama Admin isn't doing a thing about that. Whilst they let 50,000+ anchor babies through it's borders with utmost care and concern. Shows just how much the US of BSA cares about it's own. It's citizens and veterans are disposable as is evident also with the VA scandal

Bangkok. Of the many times I have visited, I have never been disappointed or had a bad time.
The scenery is spectacular, the food is some of the best in Asia, the people are welcoming and friendly, the nightlife is just so vibrant and you can go from one 24 hours to the next before you realize you have not slept. Love the skybars, some of the best night views to be found anywhere.

90's college rock. It's so simple, yet so angsty. I love it! As for what I'd show them, oh man... probably some Collective Soul or Third Eye Blind honestly.

Cambodia, Thailand or Burma.
Cambodia because of the "wild west" libertine atmosphere, Thailand because it is more developed and the food is famously good, and Burma because they recently allowed foreigners to buy property there and the economy might take off like a rocket if they become less of a dictatorship.

Germany all the way! It's the most complete team. Unlike Argentina they don't lack a good defense... They have a world class goal keeper and the best striking ammunition in the world after Argentina...

Probably a revenge killing on a child who happened to be in the wrong place/time.  Let's see what the Israeli justice system is like.

Most of these agendized studies are based primarily on self-reported information. Not surprisingly, they show that kids are better off without either a mother or a father. Naturally, the media can’t wait to celebrate.

It would be wrong beyond belief to make these kids scapegoats for their country's own problems, or the hateful racist pieces of shit that inhabit the GOP, especially down in the south. I'm sure anjy is correct that the right would be ALL for sending these kids back--but only because child labor laws prevent their corporate masters from putting them to work immediately in the fields. Sure, the GOP wants these kids to go back--there's no profit in them.

These kids are here. They should stay here. If they're kids they can be molded and made into productive citizens. Personally, I have no problem accepting any kids into this country--they don't even have be white Europeans as some in the south believe are the only human beings fit for immigration. Black, brown, red, yellow, I'm fine with ALL kids. And I am happy to see my taxes go up a tad to support them. Parents can buy their daughters a few less Barbie dolls--the prospect of what these kids face if returned being in my mind a bit less pressing than buying little missy a new Barbie. I realize that some parents think that without that Barbie, little missy will turn into a psycho, but if they're concerned about that, taking a look at their own parenting practices would probably do more than shelling out bucks for one more consumer product.

Wanna close the border? Fine. I have no problem with that. Obviously we've got a nightmare with immigration, which will be settled when the rightwingers stop running their mouths, and start holding corporations responsible for breaking the law. We're ALL in favor of getting the matter settled.

But these kids are here now, and I haven't the slightest interest in sending them back to their countries like little fucking pingpong balls to satisfy the disgusting freak southern GOPhers.

It's really that simple. Taking out your immigration--brown skin--problems on kids is really fucking dragging the bottom of honor and decency, and anyone who would suggest the same is worth shit in my book.

Why would you reduce these men, who led a movement that changed the country, to people who could do no more than sell themselves to the person with the most treats. Because you cannot respect that they are intelligent enough to make a decision that was best for them. Do you think these people would, after fighting racists all their lives, now turn around and go to bed with them? You actually think you are smarter than they are, don't you?

I have never been stopped in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, nor here in NZ.  I have been stopped by cops in France as well as the US.   It appears that I am a shitty driver in racist shitholes but not elsewhere.

Too many favorites! I love Twizzlers, Gobstoppers, Dove dark chocolate, dark chocolate M&Ms and peanut butter M&M's, i could probably keep going on lol.....

I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black.  One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.

Why don't you tell us how hard he worked to get that bill passed . Tell us how he wrote the bill and worked to get his fellow democrats to on board and support it. Tell us all about his valiant effort doc, we'd love to hear it.
http://politicalfray.com/history/2503-republican-roots-1964-civil-rights-act.html

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: ?You must take care of the civil rights bill ? my bill, the civil rights bill. Don?t let it fail.? In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP?s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Clever strategizing had won him the support of most African-American voters, but it took President John Kennedy (D-MA) nearly two years to make good on even one of his promises to them. He refused to attend a dinner commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and turned down Martin Luther King?s invitation to speak at the March on Washington. He did name Thurgood Marshall to the federal bench, but that was to an appeals court in New York, far from the fray in southern states. Kennedy did not honor his campaign promise to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill soon after taking office.

While the Kennedy administration was ignoring its campaign pledges, the Republican minority in Congress introduced several bills to protect the constitutional rights of African-Americans. In January 1963, congressional Republicans introduced a sweeping civil rights bill to enact what Democrat opposition had prevented from being included in the 1957 and 1960 laws. Threatened by this initiative, the president finally acted. Hastily drafted in a single one-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what the GOP had introduced the month before. Many Democrats were preparing a protracted Senate filibuster of this civil rights bill, which was in a committee of the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader ? not President Lyndon Johnson ? was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.

Not to be rude, but this logic is ridiculous. It isn't their plan. It's the employees plan. What the employees do with it isn't really their business. What they buy is their business.

This would be true if the decision in a typical SCOTUS case was a simple "YOU WIN!" or "YOU LOSE!" But well, that's not how it works. Laws do not exist in vacuums, nor do interpretations and decisions based on them. In this case, the court very deliberately responds to the question of personhood for a for-profit organization, which is not defined in RFRA, for example. Regardless of what sort of silly semantic acrobatics you want to start playing here, it is a matter of fact that at least part of the court's decision was based on something other than a 1993 law. Ergo, you are simply wrong. QED.



There exists nonbinding precedence for various dicta for this very reason. Judges are in fact given the latitude to express their views in a variety of contexts. There are noncontroversial (cf. "judicial activism") avenues that can be used to provide guidance to lower courts without establishing binding precedence.

In what seems to be a reversal of fortunes from the 1990s, more and more Americans are looking to Canada as the 'land of opportunity.' According to a new report by CTV News, economic woes in the U.S. are driving a record number of Americans across the northern border as they seek better job opportunities and cheaper education in Canada.

In 2011, Ottawa approved 34,185 visas for U.S. residents  — a figure that falls just short of the all-time record of 35,060 approved visas in 2010. By comparison, fewer than 20,000 Canadians moved to the U.S. over the past two years — the lowest number in nearly a decade.

"Since the 2008 economic crises, we have witnessed a steady stream of Americans applying for Canadian work visas. The main reason for this is lack of employment in the U.S. and our strong Canadian dollar."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/americans-moving-canada-record-numbers-report-161857845.html

 It has been said the Americans illegally living in Canada could be ten times that number. If you put five Americans in a room with five Canadians and then asked someone to say who is American and who is Canadian it would be hard to do. Thousands upon thousands of Americans came to Canada during the Vietnam war and many of them stayed and became Canadian citizens. Calgary, Alberta is the most "Americanized" city in Canada because of all the legal and illegal oil workers who have come to the city for work. Americans do leave their country looking for better opportunities just like other peoples come to the United States looking for the same thing.

Special Etf/index funds exist, but that doesn't mean a 401k would have them.