Disqus - Latest Comments for drywall

Re: ABQ South Valley ‘town’ now has a name: Valle de Atrisco

Atrisco — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:06:15 -0000

Valle de Atrisco is the official name of he proposed new town..

Have you seen the name of our state capital?
La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís

I am sure people will shorten it to Town of ATRISCO

Re: Weekly Pulse: Why the Stem Cell Reversal Is Not a Total Victory

drywall — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:59:59 -0000

This is my comemnt.

Re: ABQ South Valley ‘town’ now has a name: Valle de Atrisco

valledeatrisco_incorporate — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:04:50 -0000

drywall-- we would love for you to join us in this effort. There are many naysayers who do not have all of the facts. Please contact us at info@southvalleyinc.info.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

drywall — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:16:17 -0000

An excellent point. Treatment should be encouraged, though.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

Brigette_Russell — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:20:19 -0000

The problem is that treatment only works if people admit to themselves they have a drinking problem and actively want to stop. I have a close relative who's been sober and in AA for decades now, and what they say at AA about people having to hit bottom and make that choice to be sober is true. If you try to force someone to give up drinking, it usually doesn't work. A lot of these people are convinced they don't have a problem, they can handle their liquor, they just had one too many the night they got caught, the cop was being a jerk, the other driver caused the accident, whatever. They are in such denial that mandatory rehab programs are going to be ineffective in most cases.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

drywall — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:07:13 -0000

Agreed.

Is there any kind of mandatory alcohol abuse counseling included in the sentencing guidelines? If not, there ought to be. Not in lieu of stiffer penalties, mind you, but alcoholism is a treatable disease as much as it is a failure of personal responsibility.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

wanrey — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:39:13 -0000

To be honest, I've known several people with the interlock on their car and it doesn't stop them from drinking and driving. Many of them drive someone else's car or they have someone else breath in the interlock for them. I agree tougher penalties need to be enacted, it's just crazy how many awful things happen in NM cuz of drunk driving.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

Brigette_Russell — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:41:51 -0000

I'd prefer that too, if it would work. But getting hammered and driving is against the law, and if people have no qualms about breaking that law, what makes you think they would obey the law and stop driving once their licenses are revoked?

I am talking about habitual, repeat offenders here. Revoking the license is certainly a first step, but after repeat offenses, it only works if the repeat offender has the self control to refrain from driving. If chronic alcoholics had that kind of self control, they wouldn't be chronic alcoholics.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

drywall — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:47:00 -0000

I wholeheartedly agree that lowering the legal limit isn't a good way to go.

I also agree that we definitely need much tougher sentencing laws.

Though I'd be more inclined to go with more creative punishments, such as permanent suspension of drivers' licenses, than have to foot the bill for lifetime imprisonment. Sounds like the ignition interlock program is having a positive effect, for example (http://bit.ly/18OsaR).

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:19:30 -0000

I don't really see how establishing rules for naturalization necessarily leads to having to regulate allowing "potential citizens" into the country. Naturalization is about turning potential citizens into citizens, not about deciding who does and who doesn't get to be a "potential citizen."

I completely agree with you that it would be utterly impractical to make immigration strictly a state issue. You make my points for me:

1. A lot of things have changed since the Constitution was written.
2. Many parts of the Constitution are open to interpretation.

My deeper point is that the "original intent," "limited Federal goverment" philosophy you say you believe in is deeply flawed, for the above reasons. It seems like falling back on the Constitution is a defense many conservatives resort to when they don't like certain federal programs. But when a strong federal presence is necessary to further a "conservative" agenda item, such as strong limits on immigration, then somehow bringing up the Constitution becomes "ludicrous," or the Constitution's stance is moot because things have "changed dramatically," or the opposing interpretation is dismissed as utterly asinine.

For example, I know many conservatives espousing the states rights interpretation of the Constitution that staunchly believe the EPA and pollution regulation is a gross overreach of the government (not saying you're one Bridget, I don't know you views on this). Yet it's not ridiculous to suggest that pollution is a byproduct of commerce that crosses state borders, thus making it legitimate under the commerce clause.

So really, my point I guess is this: I'm happy to agree to disagree on immigration, health care, et al, but I find it distasteful for you to hide behind the Constitution when it serves your ends but dismiss it as impractical, outdated, and ludicrous (essentially employing the "but we really NEED this from the feds" argument) when it gets problematic. Just say you're laissez-faire or libertarian or something, that's fine — just don't disingenuously drag out the Constitution.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the analysis on the page I linked to? It's quite thorough.

Re: Washington Post selling access to its staff

drywall — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:16:37 -0000

And their own Ombdusman has taken them to task: http://bit.ly/kUSWw

Re: Washington Post selling access to its staff

drywall — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:57:01 -0000

The Post has already backed off from this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:58:39 -0000

So you're in favor of the federal government spending tax dollars to enforce laws that, by your own "original intent" political philosophy, the federal government has no right to have on the books in the first place?

Just trying to understand your position.

Re: ABQ South Valley ‘town’ now has a name: Valle de Atrisco

drywall — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:13:51 -0000

Should be "its own city," sans apostrophe.

I like the historical nod of the name, though as I believe the majority of NM residents are English speakers, "Atrisco Valley" might be a better option.

I also support incorporation as a separate municipality.

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:41:02 -0000

My point was that as the original framers saw it, "illegal" was something for the states to determine, not for the federal government. Did you read the analysis I linked to?

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:42:36 -0000

No, I don't remember that. But I do agree that Harry Reid is pretty much an idiot. :)

In all honesty I don't think putting illegal aliens in uppercase helps you be taken seriously, but if you think it helps drive the point home, then by all means go for it!

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

DelawareBob — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:17:33 -0000

I started putting ILLEGAL ALIENS in caps as I was very tired of people calling them "undocumented immigrants". They are NOT undocumented immigrants they are ILLEGAL ALIENS. This is the same with ILLEGAL ALIENS calling their child a U.S. citizen. The child is NOT a U.S. citizen. The child is also an ILLEGAL ALIEN. So, drywall, when the news media stops calling illegal aliens undocumented immigrants, I will stop putting ILLEGAL ALIENS in caps. I hope this is OK with you.

Of course, remember when that idiot, Harry Reid, called the ILLEGAL ALIENS "Undocumented Americans"?

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:05:59 -0000

Not to mention the several prominent right-wingers who have been caught with illegal immigrants working in their homes...

Unfortunately I think you can cross "new clothes" off that list of items. Sure there are sweatshops filled with illegals here in the U.S., but I think most apparel purchased domestically these days is manufactured in export processing zones in foreign countries like China and the Philippines. Which brings up an entirely different set of issues....

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:02:12 -0000

DelawareBob,

It would be EASIER to read your COMMENT if you didn't insist on putting CERTAIN PHRASES in all-caps every mention. It makes your COMMENT read as if you are spastically SHOUTING, making it very hard to FOCUS on the substance of your remarks. I understand WHY you want to EMPHASIZE certain concepts, but I personally find it distracting.

Thanks!

Re: McCain backer: Get behind Obama on health-care reform

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:52:40 -0000

I commend Spiri and all like him that advocate for what they think is right, whether those beliefs fit traditional partisan alignments or not. Bravo!

I also commend Spiri and his family for their service to this country. So often we apply the term "heroes" to those who do not deserve the label, such as professional athletes. But in my mind, anyone commissioned in the military deserves the moniker. Thank you.

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:53:39 -0000

So it sounds like you support strong measures against illegal immigration.

And yet, last week you argued forcefully that you believe in adhering to the Constitution as written. I quote: "Conservatives believe in the founding principles of our republic. We believe that the appropriate role of the federal government is set forth clearly in the Constitution, and that most of the powers it has arrogated to itself over the last century have been unconstitutionally usurped..."

The constitution says nothing whatsoever about empowering the federal government to control immigration, and employs the term "citizens" within the scope of the states, not federally.

Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed that immigration is NOT within the purview of the federal government:

"[A]lien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled “An Act concerning Aliens,” which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."

Given your earlier statements about the government expanding its role beyond what is proscribed in the Constitution, and your clear wish to rein it in, how can you justify supporting strong federal laws against illegal immigrants? Sounds to me like you're picking and choosing which laws should be enforced and which should be abandoned.

(for more on immigration and the Constitution, check out http://bit.ly/okUBv )

Re: Let them eat green chile

chikntheif — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:14:55 -0000

I slamdunk the liar left in the battlefield of ideas so they reduce themselves to pretending to be teachers in a classroom. Talk about an inflated ego !!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

Re: Let them eat green chile

drywall — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:09:01 -0000

Way to mix your metaphors.

Re: Let them eat green chile

drywall — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:43:35 -0000

Hmmm, interesting response. In all honesty, I would be happy to go to that office with you. I think talking to the people there would challenge both of our assumptions.

Re: Let them eat green chile

chikntheif — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:48:40 -0000

Drywall--- you said, "Instead, I will merely ask: can you provide an example of an individual who now considers him/herself a "helpless child" after being exposed to leftist fear-mongering?"

Thats easy !!! Just go look at the lines down at your local welfare office !!!