Post: #1

There is a strong theme here, and it's definitely grrrrrrrrrrrrll power

Quote:Mar 18 2015
At the Flick of a Switch

1. Right now, one single person – the President of the United States – can turn off the enforcement of our immigration laws unilaterally. For real.



2. And that’s just what President Obama has done. Since he’s the boss of federal immigration enforcement officers, he’s told them to stop enforcing our immigration laws.


3. The problem is that when our immigration laws aren’t enforced, it encourages more illegal immigration and causes the system to implode. Not cool.


4. As we move forward to make our immigration system work better, we need innovative solutions that guarantee our immigration laws will be enforced in the future.



5. And Republicans in the House of Representatives are doing just that. They are taking a step-by-step approach to fix our immigration system, starting with enforcement first.



6. House Republicans have introduced a bill that prevents the President from unilaterally shutting down the enforcement of our immigration laws. It does so by allowing state and local governments to enforce federal immigration law.



7. Right now, there are only 5,000 federal immigration enforcement officers across the United States. But there are more than 900,000 state and local law enforcement officers. We need both federal and local law enforcement officers to work together.


8. We trust state and local law enforcement officers to enforce every other category of law. So if we trust them to do all that, we should give them a role in enforcing our immigration laws. This just makes sense.


9. By allowing hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officers to enforce our immigration laws, we keep immigration enforcement up and operating, even when a president tries to unlawfully refuse to enforce our laws.



10. That way, we preserve the rule of law and protect the integrity of our generous immigration system no matter who is in the White House.


Learn more about this bill and other important bills that would strengthening the interior enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/201...f-a-switch


You know what's coming:

Post: #2

I'd like to propose that in the future, articles like these should be linked without the Jezebel style gifs.

I can't find the post/thread, but Tuth had a solid explanation of why he doesn't consider them for inclusion in the forum catalog.

Post: #3

(03-20-2015 09:21 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  I'd like to propose that in the future, articles like these should be linked without the Jezebel style gifs.

I can't find the post/thread, but Tuth had a solid explanation of why he doesn't consider them for inclusion in the forum catalog.

You mean, if the original article has the gifs, not to link them?
I'm happy to edit them out if it's a problem and I'm still in the editing window. The author's choice of gifs was interesting, due to them all being of similar nature.

Post: #4

(03-20-2015 09:21 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  I'd like to propose that in the future, articles like these should be linked without the Jezebel style gifs.

I can't find the post/thread, but Tuth had a solid explanation of why he doesn't consider them for inclusion in the forum catalog.

The .gifs are the story here though. On first read I thought P_R added them to emphasize the effeminate text-speak; I couldn't imagine that the House judiciary committee could possibly be this unprofessional in a national release, precisely because they are so juvenile and Jezebel-esque. Looks like they're trying to get women over to their side in anticipation of Hilary '16 but this is just cringeworthy. Some staffer will be losing their job shortly.

Interested in hearing the reasoning for editing them out, I hadn't heard that before.

Post: #5

The points made sense, yet the images were jarring. It would be nice to know WHY they thought they were bad rather than just use overused memes. Did they hire buzzfeed to make this?

Post: #6

(03-20-2015 09:33 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 09:21 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  I'd like to propose that in the future, articles like these should be linked without the Jezebel style gifs.

I can't find the post/thread, but Tuth had a solid explanation of why he doesn't consider them for inclusion in the forum catalog.

The .gifs are the story here though. On first read I thought P_R added them to emphasize the effeminate text-speak; I couldn't imagine that the House judiciary committee could possibly be this unprofessional in a national release, precisely because they are so juvenile and Jezebel-esque. Looks like they're trying to get women over to their side in anticipation of Hilary '16 but this is just cringeworthy. Some staffer will be losing their job shortly.

Interested in hearing the reasoning for editing them out, I hadn't heard that before.

I don't think LeBeau saw the House Judiciary Committee site. Who would think that the committee staff of the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives would post such juvenile content on the official website? What would Adams and Jefferson think?

Yeah, the .gifs are the story; it's a stupid attempt to pander to women. Metapolitics again, but another example of how ball-less the Republicans are. The guy responsible for this, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, represents western Virginia.

The underlying proposal is just another enabling of police state bullshit like checkpoints and "papers, please."