Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KingofBrown" data-source="post: 749441" data-attributes="member: 28771">I believe this is a bad move by Rusell Pearce. If they&#039;d played cleverly they shouldn&#039;t mention that bill yet. As you say &quot;This will really stir the pot and I am not sure they can word it in such a way to make it viable but it will bring heavy attention to a major problem.&quot; So I think he&#039;s just drowning himself (I&#039;m not saying politically, because I don&#039;t know). First, we need to try to solve the immigration problem in a smart way, and then the anchor babies’ problem will be obsolete. So I think that passing irrelevant bills to bring the attention to a problem or to call the attention of the Federal Government is not worth it. It is not worth it the resources neither the time of our so called &quot;inefficient&quot; Federal Government, when it can focus its attention and time to try to solve from the roots of the problems. I&#039;m sure there are many other ways to bring the attention to problems, without passing irrelevant bills. But if it&#039;s for political moves, then that&#039;s another story. That&#039;s just my simple opinion.About the presidents rank:<a href="http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html" target="_blank">http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html</a>&quot;Obviously, there&#039;s not great validity to it since they&#039;ve only been in office for one year,&quot; says the survey&#039;s co-director and statistician Douglas Lonnstrom. &quot;But it&#039;s a benchmark for us to see how they move.&quot; President tend to rank around 20th while they are in office, and Obama is no exception. His actions over the next few years will decide if he stays roughly the same like Reagan—who moved from 16th to 20th, 22nd, 16th again, and finally to 18th this year—or like Bush, who fell a dramatic 16 slots in the first poll after he left office, from 23rd to 39th.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KingofBrown, post: 749441, member: 28771"] [B]I believe this is a bad move by Rusell Pearce. If they'd played cleverly they shouldn't mention that bill yet. As you say "This will really stir the pot and I am not sure they can word it in such a way to make it viable but it will bring heavy attention to a major problem." So I think he's just drowning himself (I'm not saying politically, because I don't know). First, we need to try to solve the immigration problem in a smart way, and then the anchor babies’ problem will be obsolete. So I think that passing irrelevant bills to bring the attention to a problem or to call the attention of the Federal Government is not worth it. It is not worth it the resources neither the time of our so called "inefficient" Federal Government, when it can focus its attention and time to try to solve from the roots of the problems. I'm sure there are many other ways to bring the attention to problems, without passing irrelevant bills. But if it's for political moves, then that's another story. That's just my simple opinion.[/B] [B]About the presidents rank:[/B] [URL]http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html[/URL] "Obviously, there's not great validity to it since they've only been in office for one year," says the survey's co-director and statistician Douglas Lonnstrom. "But it's a benchmark for us to see how they move." President tend to rank around 20th while they are in office, and Obama is no exception. His actions over the next few years will decide if he stays roughly the same like Reagan—who moved from 16th to 20th, 22nd, 16th again, and finally to 18th this year—[B]or like Bush, who fell a dramatic 16 slots in the first poll after he left office, from 23rd to 39th.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification