Obama best in 47 years or dismal failure? on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 3

Last I heard approaching 18%, thats a bit high in my opinion. I would bet this number is higher if all figures were known.

You heard? From whom?

Do some research.

You want me to do research to prove your point? I think you should do research before you post opinions with no facts to back them up.

That's a ridiculous argument, Seal.

So, okay let's say you're right, and unemployment is 18%. That would mean that the first day Obama took office, unemployment was around 16%, per your thinking.

There is no way any logical person can deny the fact that Obama walked in after the economy and unemployment were already spiraling??? You may recall that W and Obama were consulting together on bailout plans before Obama was even in office. Nevermind, you probably don't recall that.

Both of you are right.

Real unemployment, which includes those who stop looking for jobs, is much much higher than reported figures (which is only those looking).

Yes Obama walked into office with that number already staggeringly high.

Seal, you are dishonest in your attribution of the problem to primarily Obama.

Would that figure be much higher without the stimulus package, yes probably so it is fair to say it saved jobs.

But...

The unemployed Joe Six Pack doesn't care if others are losing their jobs too. He is only concerned with himself and his situation. There is some figure on the order of around 20% unemployed Joe Six Packs who in their ignorance of economics are more than happy to blame whoever is in office for their continued situation.

As unemployment goes down, so will job approval go up for Obama. If it stays up... Obama will suffer.

Are you remotely familiar with the concept of legal precedent and the inherent authority of the Circuit Courts and SCOTUS in the big picture? From your posts it appears you are not. Oh and FYI, federal judges are not appointed to "interpret" the constitution, they are appointed to uphold and defend it.

There is no point in going over the modus ponens vs. strawman fallacy again, clearly it was lost on you.

I swear, this guy is as much fun as Reno used to be!

My question is this...

Obama has been in office for over a year and a half...Dems have controlled both Houses for over 3 and a half years...

At what point do they get some of the blame...

I'm not saying Obama takes all the blame, I'm the first to blame Bush for this...but Obama deserves some too...

He after all did vote for each of Bush's budget's that put us in this mess...as did Hillary, Biden, and Rahm...

Those 4 approved each Bush budget they had a chance to vote on...

At some point, people have to realize that there is enough blame to go around...

He deserves blame for:

-the incredible deficit
-continuing the un-winnable wars in the Middle East
-dancing too much in the middle, trying to get votes out of the GOP....in trying to appease the right too much, he loses votes on the left. Go hard, or go home.

Obama is like the guy that works in the plumbing dept but is trying to help you in the electrical dept. He seems a bit lost, and is constantly looking for someone who knows the answer.

And after he leaves and goes back to the plumbing dept.....you wonder why he works in the plumbing dept when he can make more money as an actual plumber.

You should really stop writing out responses that say absolutely nothing.

Try making a valid, logical point some time, it'd be refreshing. You just make random ass sarcastic half-wit comments without pointing to anything specific. Like "your posts make me believe you don't understand precedents." How's that, exactly?

You're right, there's really no point going over strawman arguments again because you're actually the one who mis-represents my position on a constant basis, and you never had any **** idea what you were talking about in the first place.

You may also want to go back and take an 8th grade civics class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

You'll notice the terms "interpret laws" and "interpret the US Constitution" on that page under responsibilities of the Judicial Branch.

Does it ever occur to you not to start typing before you know what you're talking about?

I know AV8R doesn't need me to defend him, he can do just fine on his own, but I see no reason to be rude and demeaing towards another person on here...I don't appreciate it when it is done to me and don't like it when I see it done to other people.

thanks Leslie. I was busy taking my Wiki course on civics where I was learning, of all things, about the federal judiciary!

I was tickled to ready Tyler's demeaning post accusing me of being demeaning. Typical liberal defense.

FWIW, I was not relying on Wiki as my source of information Tyler. I was relying on the two oaths of office that all federal judges must take upon appointment to the bench.

Here, this is in your language: your post makes me believe that perhaps you've never delved into the actual oaths of office required of federal judges?

" Real unemployment "


You guys keep refering to it as people that have stopped looking for work, I don't think that's what it means.
Real unemployment simply means, those that receive a unemployment check, together with those that don't have a job, it does not mean they are not looking for work.

Am I wrong?

OK, I've snipped out all the blather but will respond to this since you insist. I posted a smattering of legal precedent from other federal courts. There were more, substantially more, and they are all on point not only with the Supremacy Clause issue, but Immigration specifically. Some were from the federal circuit courts, the penultimate arbiter (one level above the federal district court, which is where Judge Bolton sits, in the District of Arizona). One was from the Supreme Court of the United States, which as I assume you learned on Wiki is above the federal circuit courts, and is the ultimate arbiter of federal jurisprudence.

All these cases seem to point to the fact that law enforcement officers who derive their powers from the state CAN enforce federal law, including immigration law.

Whether I am more qualified than Judge Bolton to decide the case is irrelevant. I believe that she erred in her conclusion and that her ruling will be overturned, if not by the 9th Circuit then by SCOTUS. To assume that she is automatically correct negates the very purpose of judicial review by the circuit and the supremes. The system exists in its current form because district judges err from time to time. It is my belief, based upon the legal precedent already established by numerous circuits and SCOTUS, that this is one of those times.