Fairweather

The solution is obvious: We give Japan the green light to assemble the nuclear warheads they probably already have the pieces for. Seriously though; I think North Korea shot down a S Korean passenger plane back in the 1990's and killed over 100 civilians. They also set off a bomb and killed half the S Korean cabinet during a state visit to Burma back in the 1980's. Life is cheap pretty much everywhere it seems. If you put all of today's strategic data into some sort of outcome-based weighting program re Korea it would probably produce NO WINNER.

Gave the order? Hell, bush was piloting the mini sub himself!

I think it goes back even farther--to Toyotomi Hideyoshi. A special brand of Japanese paranoia. Japan was never worried about the Koreans themselves, but they did seem to honestly believe the Chinese and/or Russians would use the peninsula to threaten their islands. In the case of the Russians, who poured troops into Korea and the Liaodung Peninsula in 1902-4, they may have had a point. I'm just speculating as to whether modern China is still somehow trying to exploit this old paranoia. Crazy shit.

Libtards who have let their ideology become their straitjacket.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-20/news/17173999_1_immigration-status-el-salvador-illegal-immigrant Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F. Years before he was accused of killing a man and his two sons, Edwin Ramos was a teen criminal shielded by city from deportation July 20, 2008|By Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer The man charged with killing a father and two sons on a San Francisco street last month was one of the youths who benefited from the city's long-standing practice of shielding illegal immigrant juveniles who committed felonies from possible deportation, The Chronicle has learned. Edwin Ramos, now 21, is being held on three counts of murder in the June 22 deaths of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. They were shot near their home in the Excelsior district when Tony Bologna, driving home from a family picnic, briefly blocked the gunman's car from completing a left turn down a narrow street, police say.

Then why do illegals currently make up one-seventh of AZ's population?

This is, and has been federal law since the 1980's too, Off. Most, if not all countries provide penalties for foreign visitors who don't have ID on their person.

It's from a Tokugawa/Meiji Japan History course I'm taking right now. Their words, not mine.

The problem is that there has been NO federal enforcement for a long time.

No, but the police would, technically, have a right to hold you while they investigate your background. Are you suggesting you/we have a right to complete anonymity?

An yang hashim nikka. Hans imneda.

if you got brown skin, then you is guilty. and that aint racism, neither. just ask nitrox and his fairweather friend... no brains = no headaches Read the law, dumbass.

Nope. Not at all. Are you suggesting you don't have to show your driver's license when pulled over? Are you suggesting that if a police officer suspects a crime has been committed he should stand down so you can sate some lib version of PC run amok?

So, I've thought about this some more. Actually, I'm OK with so-called "sanctuary cities." Well, actually, it's complicated. I think there is a big difference between deciding not to enforce a law, and deciding to enforce an additional law. For example; I'm totally in support of the City of Seattle deciding not to enforce marijuana laws relating to simple possession. I feel like this sort of "look the other way" allows cities and states to rebel against overreaching federal control. This isn't really the same as enforcing a law in opposition of the federal government which disenfranchises citizens. There seems to be an important distinction there. In the former example, nobody is being oppressed as a result. So, is it OK for states and cities to "flout" federal law? I guess my answer to that is, it depends. What's the effect? Is the flouting of the law protecting civil liberties, or threatening them? Because when it comes down to it, that's more important than "the law." Thanks for the response, but that's some seriously convoluted logic. You spoke of disenfranchising "citizens", but, of course, that's not at all what we're talking about here. The AZ law does nothing that federal law doesn't also provide for--if only those laws were enforced.

30,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul--who needs nukes! A pretty bad situation all around. Not sure why China doesn't finally reign in its little pit bull, other than they want to keep a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8689810.stm That's Makalu in the background. Was this picture taken from the south col? Also, I bet she has a really hot accent.

Here you go, champ: http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Investigators-Local-college-pays-for-home-to-sit-empty-and-unused-81992452.html The president of the Evergreen State College in Olympia is getting extra perks that some say are out of touch with today's reality. Since the inception of the college in 1971, each president of Evergreen State has lived in the official residence of the college. It’s a five bedroom, three bathroom home with a view of the water and Mount Rainier. It’s already paid for as well. But for the last five years the home’s been empty; collecting bills and dust. President Dr. Les Purce, who declined to be interviewed for this report, moved into a new home to be closer to a bus line to accommodate a family member with a disability. "The current house simply would not work for the Purce family, so that was the impetus for this move," said Jason Wettstein, Evergreen State College Public Information Officer. Needing bus service is a perfectly legitimate reason to relocate, but the KING 5 Investigators looked into whether the cost should be passed on to taxpayers. A mortgage expert tells us the payment for the president's new house would be roughly $2,500 a month. His housing allowance, authorized by the Board of College Trustees, is $5,000 a month. That adds up to $270,000 and counting in extra housing dollars since the move. Dr. Purce's salary is about $246,000 a year. Students on campus just saw their tuition go up 14 percent and expect another hike soon. "That's crazy to me because if he's getting more than the house is worth, then that's just extra money that he's being given by the taxpayers," said student Jeff Konen. The spending doesn't stop at the president's new doorstep. The old home is racking up expenses. The KING 5 Investigators obtained billing records for the official residence; expenses since the home’s sat empty and unused: $15,000 for utilities, $10,000 for repairs and upgrades, $15,000 to paint and furnish the home to try to sell it, $3,000 in yard maintenance. "Housing affordability and access is constantly an issue for students so it would have been nice for that to go to some affordable housing. Maybe we could rent out that extra house for some students to live in for a while," said student Josephine Jarvis. Expenses for the old house, plus the housing allowance for the new one, has cost taxpayers an estimated $313,000 so far. "You know what they say, $300,000 here, $300,000 there. It begins to add up to real money eventually," said student Alexandre Chateaubriand. Amber Gunn, Director of the Economic Policy Director of the conservative political watch-dog group Evergreen Freedom Foundation, suggested KING 5 look into the story after she ran across a Request for Quotes put out by the college. The request was for companies to bid on cleaning the president’s new home twice a week. "It just shows, (they’re) completely oblivious to what is happening around the rest of the state by the unemployment rate and budget problems,” said Gunn. The cleaning contract is a detailed one which includes: twice a week do the dishes and take out the trash. Once a week wash the floor with wood-friendly soap. Once a month clean window sills and the range hood. That’s an extra $300 a month, not to exceed $778 a month. "The cleaning service is basically a way to keep the house presentable for public events and to clean up after the public events and these public events in a private home are a regular part of the president's job," said Wettstein. Records show nine or so events are held at the home each year. The additional costs come on the backdrop of the state's financial problems: a $2.6-billion deficit. "And yet we see instances like this where we have a public university with a president who can't do his own dishes and take out his own trash and is asking taxpayers to subsidize that. I see that as highly problematic and symptomatic of other things that are happening in government as well where we have waste like this in small amounts and it adds up and it adds to our budget problems as well," said Gunn. According to county records, the assessed value of the old home is $773,000. The school first tried to sell it four years ago when the housing market was hot. It's not clear why there were no takers. It's now on the rental market, offered at $2,000 a month. We checked with Western Washington, Central and Eastern Washington Universities. Each requires the president to live in the official residence as a condition of employment.

Rob, we know where you stand vis a vis Arizona's supposed 'flouting' of federal law, but do you apply this same set of principles to municipalities that have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' in clear violation of the same?

Windows 7 has made the Mac an even more irrelevant fashion statement.

60%

I'm not sure those Brit soldiers were as unsympathetic as you think. The colonists were pretty split in 1770, with 20% patriot, 20% crown, and 40% who just didn't give a shit. Kinda like today. Frankly, I'm not sure there was a very good case for revolution.

I need the space for when I have the Gores over for dinner. Keep a close eye on Tipper. I hear she's a klepto.

Um, yea. Did I say otherwise?

Not back in the day they weren't. Of course, those Brits were just defending themselves against an angry rebellious mob, eh? Good call.

That was his son, John Quincy Adams. (If, as I assume, you're referring to the Amistad defendants.)