Question Re: Executive Action

[pastorjoeboggs]

To be up front with this - I'm not at all sure I like Obama's use of executive action on immigration (though the refusal of Boehner to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to a vote has to be considered with that).

That said, I have a question for the reasonable conservatives (as in, not you, GMM) on the board.

It is well known that Reagan and other Republican presidents addressed immigration issues via executive action. Is the opposition to Obama's use based on disagreement with the principle of executive action, disagreement with his policy, or simply dislike of the man?

Genuinely curious.

 

[indyogb]

I don't like the method. Don't get me wrong, I'm against "amnesty" (or whatever you want to call it), and if it had passed via the legislative branch I would probably still complain, but at least that would be the "standard" process for taking such actions and I would accept its existence (as I mostly have for another bill I dislike in many ways - the ACA). My dislike of the action is aggravated some by his defense of taking executive action - that it was needed. Well, lots of actions in history were taken by one person who felt they were needed - it's called fascism. If he responds to defending his actions as legal, at least that's an argument, but responding to criticism of the method with the content isn't really going to calm the complaints. "Executive" means to execute not legislate. If this is the way we're going to do things, we should just elect a dictator every four years and scrap the otherwise meaningless "legislative" branch. I hope Il Duce can save us from ourselves. As for Reagan's amnesty - I was in elementary school then, so I wasn't even aware. I'm pretty sure illegal immigration wasn't quite as big a problem then as now (or, at least, it wasn't in the forefront of the news like it is now).

As far as "amnesty" generally - I really don't like rewarding illegal immigrants, but I understand the plight of those who were born here but whose parents were/are illegally here. Fix that, fine, but stop the problem at its core - which is people coming over here illegally to begin with. If we aren't going to have a border at all, do we even exist as a nation? If not, do I still have to pay my taxes to an entity which doesn't really fit the definition of a national government? D yeah, right) I can't believe there are many for this expanded idea of "open borders" (and, maybe there aren't) for that very reason. Such policies are NOT reciprocated in much of the rest of the world. This whole episode really just furthers my belief that this "country" is damaged beyond repair - it's not a single entity in almost any way anymore. The US feels a bit like a scattered, less organized EU at this point. One leader is not going to be able to galvanize enough of the country to get it meaningfully going in any one direction.

One more point, mostly unrelated - what does it mean to be a "reasonable conservative"? I hear that thrown around a lot on the typical channels right now, but I never hear nor have I heard the phrase "reasonable liberal" (I suppose I used to occasionally hear of "blue dog Democrats"). Sure, there are more right wing conservatives now than a few years back, I guess, but there are surely more left wing liberals as well. Neither here nor there, I guess, but just something that strikes me as interesting.



This post was edited on 11/21 11:39 AM by indyogb

 

[SCBoiler]

What Reagan did was execute legislation that was passed by Congress (I believe it was called Simpson Mazzoli Act not sure). That is totally different than what this president is doing. Don't believe what you hear on the news. It's called liberal spin.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

For the most part, I agree with you - I'm against amnesty for anyone that had a reasonable understanding of right and wrong and who had a choice not to come illegally. But if a three year old was brought by his or her parents 15 years ago and is now graduating high school, he or she should not be deported (for the same reason that we treat juvenile crimes and crimes by the genuinely insane differently from those committed by sane adults).

I also worry about the abuse of executive action to get around a party that disagrees on genuine principle - and as much as I don't always agree with the GOP on the issue, I believe much of their opposition is fueled on genuine principles with arguments that have rational support. The point of our system is supposed to be to find a synthesis between the two parties, not to circumvent it wherever possible. Again, though, it has to be acknowledged that the Senate did offer a synthesis in the form of a bill with bipartisan support, and Boehner simply refuses to do anything with it or offer an alternative.

Lastly, the "reasonable conservative" comment was directed towards GMM and his ilk, who would typically respond to a question like this with straw men, extreme rhetoric, name-calling and other irrationalities. I was (and am) hoping to avoid that nonsense in favor of a real discussion.

 

[Beeazlebub]

"One more point, mostly unrelated - what does it mean to be a "reasonable
conservative"? I hear that thrown around a lot on the typical channels
right now, but I never hear nor have I heard the phrase "reasonable
liberal" (I suppose I used to occasionally hear of "blue dog
Democrats"). Sure, there are more right wing conservatives now than a
few years back, I guess, but there are surely more left wing liberals as
well. Neither here nor there, I guess, but just something that strikes
me as interesting."

Good question.

I interpret reason as the ability and willingness for someone to use evidence as opposed to ideology or dogma as a guide for their position on a given issue. No one is immune to this, including me.

On the right, those lacking reason might include things like: birthers, denial of climate change, young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers, Benghazi conspiracy, opposition embryonic stem cell research, and racism.

On the left, the list might include: anti-vaxxers, the "no blood for oil" crowd, anti GMOs, failure to recognize evolutionary biology (evolution gets the cold shoulder from both liberals & conservatives), the "natural" fallacy, and the fear of technology (e.g. nuclear energy).

 

[GMM]

No one is immune to this, including me.

Well, yeah, especially when you claim there are people who deny climate change. Can you name anybody who does that?

opposition embryonic stem cell research

The opposition amongst conservatives is about forcing taxpayers to subsidize this. Can you name any prominent Republican or conservative who want to ban embryonic stem cell research?

racism

Curious, what do you mean by "racism"?

failure to recognize evolutionary biology (evolution gets the cold shoulder from both liberals & conservatives)

On what grounds does the left oppose recognizing evolutionary biology?

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by GMM:
No one is immune to this, including me.

Well, yeah, especially when you claim there are people who deny climate change. Can you name anybody who does that?

opposition embryonic stem cell research

The opposition amongst conservatives is about forcing taxpayers to subsidize this. Can you name any prominent Republican or conservative who want to ban embryonic stem cell research?

racism

Curious, what do you mean by "racism"?

failure to recognize evolutionary biology (evolution gets the cold shoulder from both liberals & conservatives)

On what grounds does the left oppose recognizing evolutionary biology?

1) By climate denial, I mean denial of human influence on the current climate system.

2) For what evidence based reason was federal funding opposed?

3) By racism, I mean those who think race is a genetic determinant of behavior.

4) There are young earth creationists on the left as well as the right.

 

[GMM]

1) By climate denial, I mean denial of human influence on the current climate system.

Which has a completely different meaning.

2) For what evidence based reason was federal funding opposed?

One, that it destroys human life. Two, that it doesn't work so its a waste of money.

Once again the wording makes all the difference.

3) By racism, I mean those who think race is a genetic determinant of behavior.

LOL! Yeah, like that's how the term is used.

4) There are young earth creationists on the left as well as the right.

You didn't answer my question. Why do people on the left oppose evolutionary biology?

 

[SDBoiler1]

SCBoiler,

What you said is true. From qazplm's favorite source:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), immigration law.



University of Notre Dame.

Reagan actually worked with Congress on this, and Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to pass it. It took some time and revisions, but it eventually passed.


Introduced in the Senate as Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986

Unfortunately, the current imperious President has no intention of working with Congress to pass much of anything, so he tries to use Executive Order (fiats) to ramrod things through like he's doing now on "Immigration Reform".

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

It is well known that Reagan and other Republican presidents addressed immigration issues via executive action. Is the opposition to Obama's use based on disagreement with the principle of executive action, disagreement with his policy, or simply dislike of the man?

I think in most cases, it's "OBAMA BAD!!" Anything he does is wrong because he's the head coach of the Other Team.

For me, I don't like the politicking. For six years, Obama's said, effectively, that he can't act without Congress on this issue, or at least that his preference is that Congress finds a solution. Now, on the eve of losing control of the Senate, and thus the entire Congress, he acts. It is a witting attempt to circumvent Congress now that he knows Congress will not pass legislation that suits his party's desires.

To your point about Reagan, yes, he exercised Executive Orders regarding immigration AFTER Congress passed a bill. The legislation didn't do everything he thought it should, so he used his authority to create things like the pending status, etc. Congress has recognized those actions in fact. Obama here is acting unilaterally in the absence of legislation, effectively taking what Reagan did several steps further.

I don't like it because it's a political move. He could've done this earlier, but he didn't and he didn't for political reasons. That said, I'm not sure it's all that terrible of an action. I think a lot of Conservatives think he just increased his voter base, which he didn't. Documented workers don't get the right to vote without citizenship. IMO, Republicans shouldn't be scared of immigration. They should embrace it, and seek to empower immigrants who are here. Simply fighting to keep 4 million voters off the roll isn't going to work. Figure out a legal, ethical way to grant citizenship to the correct folks, and shore up border enforcement to stop this problem in the future.

Instead, I think the far right is going to fight it tooth and nail and become yet another "do nothing Congress" as they act out of anger and spite. Both sides need to grow up (When Obama doesn't get his way, he just takes his ball and does whatever he wants with it); I prefer the Republicans do so first.

 

[SCBoiler]

You sound like a liberal. Everyone else on the right just doesn't like Obama because he's not on our team except you, because your so enlightened and open-minded. I and most conservatives I talk to have a problem with his implementation of socialism (Ooh there's that bad word that proves I don't like him, but that's what he's doing) and lack of leadership in national security that we have a problem with. I don't care who he is, what he is, what sex, what color, what party, it's the job he's doing that has me worried for the future of our country. And most conservatives agree with me.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Reagan took Executive action that exceeded the bounds of the IRCA. Some have described what he did as effectively "tying up loose ends." So it is disingenuous to be upset about Obama's Executive action while calling what Reagan did "enforcing the legislation." Both are acting outside of legislation. The difference is Reagan's Executive Orders were framed around relevant legislation. Obama's are based on prosecutorial discretion; effectively, we can't hope to deport 11 million people, so let's look at an alternative solution.

Very different things, both arguably defensible and logical, but one is quite a bit more far-reaching than the other.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'm glad I sound like a liberal to those on the far right because I think those on the far right are as idiotic as those on the far left. What Obama did last night isn't that terrible, but I don't like the reason he chose this time and this action.

I think the majority of Conservatives don't have a clear sense of what he really did with this Executive Order, but because he did it, it must be wrong. Thus "OBAMA BAD."

I think there are just as many liberals that are cheering this action because he did it in spite of Republicans, so their team wins.

It's not about me. It's about the nature of politics and general public consensus in this country. The vast, vast majority of people are underinformed and just rooting for their team.

 

[SCBoiler]

One more big difference is Reagan did it in a bipartisan way where Obama is doing this all on his own with 0 input from the other side. That doesn't mean us on the "far right" have a problem because our team didn't get input and "lost" , it's because that's not the way things should get done in what I believe is still a constitutional republic, not a court room. Obama hasn't even tried to work with the other side. Your relativity meter is off. Because both Reagan and Obama used "executive action" doesn't mean they are the same. But us on the " far right" are just idiots because we care about our country.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCBoiler]

It's not about you, it's just that the rest of us are "idiots", and we are uninformed. Got it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCBoiler]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
we can't hope to deport 11 million people, so let's look at an alternative solution.

Who on the " far right" doesn't agree with this? The big difference is us conservatives want the spicket turned off before we do this. Whoa! That's crazy!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:
SCBoiler,


Unfortunately, the current imperious President has no intention of working with Congress to pass much of anything, so he tries to use Executive Order (fiats) to ramrod things through like he's doing now on "Immigration Reform".

So you don't think that the reticence of Boehner to address a bipartisan bill presented by the Senate has anything to do with the current situation? Doesn't the responsibility of "working with" cut both ways - the president has a responsibility to 'work with" Congress and Congress has a responsibility to "work with" the president. Neither is holding up their end of that responsibility - or even making a respectable effort to do so.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
we can't hope to deport 11 million people, so let's look at an alternative solution.

Who on the " far right" doesn't agree with this? The big difference is us conservatives want the spicket turned off before we do this. Whoa! That's crazy!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I tell you what - when I was watching the Republican primary debates during the last presidential election, only one candidate dared to say "We aren't going to deport 11 million people" - Newt Gingrich. And when he did, his chances of winning tanked (albeit not entirely for that reason).

Why does "turning off the spigot" have to be first? Why can't the two be tied together in an approach that seeks to close the border to illegal immigration and compassionately address those already here illegally? The other element here is what does "turning off the spigot" actually mean? Fully closed border? I hope not - and don't think any conservatives actually think that. What does it look like, though? And can we close the border without also addressing some of the reasons why people feel the need to come illegally (through, for example, allowing migrant worker visas and finding ways to shorten wait times for the legal immigration of immediate family).

 

[SDBoiler1]

Please. You don't think Boehner and Republican House are acting the way they are because Obama ramroded Obamacare through Congress without a single, solitary Republican vote? He creates a massive new entitlement program, defunds Medicare to the tune of $700B to pay for his new monstrosity, and says things like "We won! Get over it!" and the other side is just supposed to roll over and continue taking it up the a$$?

How do you trust a guy like this? Hell, even people in his own party like Harry Reid who play the role of his waterboys can barely get a minute with the guy and his staff. Obama has shown no inclination to want to work with Boehner or McConnell on anything. It's always his way or the highway. Since he took office, that's been the case. These guys tried to work in a bipartisan way in 2009 and the other side would have no part of it. "We won! Get over it!"

 

[SCBoiler]

Except, the Republicans had no power to do anything. I hate to tell ya but Harry Reid and Obama didn't really consult with the Republicans about this so called bi partisan bill passed by the Senate. Boehner knew he couldn't get it passed in the House so he didn't take it up. The House passed a bill too and Reid wouldn't put it up for a vote. Why not? The democrats are the ones that have to do everything by power because their policies aren't popular with the American people. It's about the policies not the politics.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GMM]

No

It doesn't matter what the GOP does or doesn't do. Its up to Obama to enforce the laws that are on the books. There is no point in passing new laws if the current laws aren't being enforced.

Gosh, was that too "unreasonable" for you?

 

[GMM]

No other president made up immigration law like Obama is trying to do. Besides, its not whether or not previous presidents have done it. Its whether or not its good for Americans.

Was the 1986 law good for Americans? No.

Is what Obama is trying to do good for Americans? No.

Are your delicate sensibilities still intact?

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:

Please. You don't think Boehner and Republican House are acting the way they are because Obama ramroded Obamacare through Congress without a single, solitary Republican vote? He creates a massive new entitlement program, defunds Medicare to the tune of $700B to pay for his new monstrosity, and says things like "We won! Get over it!" and the other side is just supposed to roll over and continue taking it up the a$$?

How do you trust a guy like this? Hell, even people in his own party like Harry Reid who play the role of his waterboys can barely get a minute with the guy and his staff. Obama has shown no inclination to want to work with Boehner or McConnell on anything. It's always his way or the highway. Since he took office, that's been the case. These guys tried to work in a bipartisan way in 2009 and the other side would have no part of it. "We won! Get over it!"

You're jumping to conclusions about me.

I don't trust Obama and I am greatly disappointed in his leadership, or lack thereof. Nor am I saying that the GOP should just give up on its principles and give in on the issue. What I am saying is that the GOP could accomplish a great deal for its own future if it were to publicly offer a reasonable compromise that includes some of what the Democrats want and some of what the Republicans want. Doing so puts Obama and Dems under all the pressure - if they reject it, they are unmasked as the party that won't work within the system. (And please don't say that the Republicans have tried to offer a compromise - they haven't).

BTW, the Senate bill had major sponsors from both parties (including, I think, McCain). It was not just a Democrat thing.

I think you're absolutely right that the way the ACA was passed was the genesis of the problem. Still, just because your opponent abuses the system and acts like an ass, that doesn't mean you have to. Nor does it absolve you of the responsibility to try to actually govern rather than willingly be a part of a do-nothing government. If the GOP (or the President, for that matter) were to put forth a good faith effort and get shut down, that's an entirely different animal - but neither is...and the whole country loses because both sides are wrong.

 

[SCBoiler]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:


we can't hope to deport 11 million people, so let's look at an alternative solution.

Who on the " far right" doesn't agree with this? The big difference is us conservatives want the spicket turned off before we do this. Whoa! That's crazy!

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I tell you what - when I was watching the Republican primary debates during the last presidential election, only one candidate dared to say "We aren't going to deport 11 million people" - Newt Gingrich. And when he did, his chances of winning tanked (albeit not entirely for that reason).



Why does "turning off the spigot" have to be
first? Why can't the two be tied together in an approach that seeks to close the border to illegal immigration and compassionately address those already here illegally? The other element here is what does "turning off the spigot" actually mean? Fully closed border? I hope not - and don't think any conservatives actually think that. What
does it look like, though? And can we close the border without also addressing some of the reasons why people feel the need to come illegally (through, for example, allowing migrant worker visas and finding ways to shorten wait times for the legal immigration of immediate family).

I don't think theres anyone that would really try to deport 11 million people. They would never get elected and it probably wouldn't be cost productive. The reason we have to secure the border first is because the reason we are where we are is because we've already been down this road. The border security was part of Simpson mazzolli and never got done which is why we are here. If we don't secure the border we will wash rinse and repeat. I understand having compassion for people , but shouldn't we have compassion for our own people first. Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by GMM:
1) By climate denial, I mean denial of human influence on the current climate system.

Which has a completely different meaning.

A: The science says you're wrong. Nothing else explains the warming of the earth other than the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Physics doesn't care about your ultra-conservative ideology

2) For what evidence based reason was federal funding opposed?

One, that it destroys human life. Two, that it doesn't work so its a waste of money.

Once again the wording makes all the difference.

A: Arguing that it doesn't work is ridiculous.


"We can't say how long it will take to find new treatments for any
specific disease using embryonic stem cells. Biomedical research typically
has a time frame of 10, 20, even 30 years. Fourteen years elapsed between
the first unsuccessful clinical trial of bone marrow transplantation and
the first successful transplant among unrelated patients. Now bone marrow
transplants are widely touted as the best example of a successful stem
cell therapy.



Biomedical research takes a long time, but the sooner the research starts,
the sooner it will yield new insights and new treatments. If research were
stopped by uncertainty, we never would have developed blood transfusions,
cardiac bypass surgery, insulin therapy for diabetes, kidney dialysis,
antibiotics, organ transplants and many other treatments we now take for
granted."
3) By racism, I mean those who think race is a genetic determinant of behavior.

LOL! Yeah, like that's how the term is used.

A: How do you define racism in GMM's world?

Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics
or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it
as inferior or superior to another race or races.


4) There are young earth creationists on the left as well as the right.

You didn't answer my question. Why do people on the left oppose evolutionary biology?

A: Because they believe in a literal interpretation of scripture, and evolution conflicts with their beliefs.

What is it you're getting at? That evolution means that groups of humans can have different characteristics? The answer to that is yes, but where you go horribly wrong is when you equate those evolutionary differences to the ambiguous notion of race. That is racism.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:
It's not about you, it's just that the rest of us are "idiots", and we are uninformed. Got it.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

For the majority, I would prefer the term "underinformed" and thus rooting for your team. If you're on the far right with the likes of GMM where you think being called a racist is a good thing, then yes, I would consider you an idiot. Your call.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
we can't hope to deport 11 million people, so let's look at an alternative solution.

Who on the " far right" doesn't agree with this? The big difference is us conservatives want the spicket turned off before we do this. Whoa! That's crazy!

Posted from Rivals Mobile

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say whether the far right agreed or disagreed with this, only that prosecutorial discretion is the basis for Obama's action. Whether you agree or disagree with that is up to you, but I would wager that most "far right" Conservatives disagree, and view all 11 million illegal immigrants (note, I do not call them 'undocumented') and precisely that: illegal, and thus subject to deportation.

Agree with pastorjoe, why do we have to turn off the flow first? Seems like an arbitrary thing to care so much about in the long run.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:
One more big difference is Reagan did it in a bipartisan way where Obama is doing this all on his own with 0 input from the other side. That doesn't mean us on the "far right" have a problem because our team didn't get input and "lost" , it's because that's not the way things should get done in what I believe is still a constitutional republic, not a court room. Obama hasn't even tried to work with the other side. Your relativity meter is off. Because both Reagan and Obama used "executive action" doesn't mean they are the same. But us on the " far right" are just idiots because we care about our country.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Gosh, I really struck a nerve.

How is one Executive Order "bipartisan" and the other is not? By definition, Reagan's Executive Order was unilateral. The fact that congress accepted it and moved on doesn't make it "bipartisan." It was enacted by one man, just like Obama's was.

The key difference is that Obama is acting completely outside new legislation, where Reagan was acting in addition to new legislation. As I've said three times in this thread, I do not approve of the politics by which Obama executed this order, and would favor something more like what Reagan did, but you're so wrapped around the axle at being called a "far right idiot" you can't see straight. You're just proving my point for me, I guess.

 

[SCBoiler]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

It's not about you, it's just that the rest of us are "idiots", and we are uninformed. Got it.



Posted from Rivals Mobile

For the majority, I would prefer the term "underinformed" and thus rooting for your team. If you're on the far right with the likes of GMM where you think being called a racist is a good thing, then yes, I would consider you an idiot. Your call.

I don't know GMM, but if your one of those people that call other people you don't know or understand a racist, your the idiot.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GMM]

1) No, the science doesn't say I'm wrong. There is no science that says denying the climate changes is the same as denying that man caused the climate to change.

2) In other words, its unproven. Which is why, if YOU think its a good idea, you can fund it yourself. To object to federal funding for moral and practical grounds is entirely reasonable. Your initial characterization is still inaccurate.

3) Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

As usual, you have to exaggerate. When are you going to stop making this mistake?

Besides, this particular definition of yours almost never applies to what gets called "racism" nowadays. If anyone is being unreasonable, its those who throw the term around at anyone they disagree with. Especially when race has nothing to do with it. Happens all the time.

4) That evolution means that groups of humans can have different characteristics?

Yes, that's what evolution means. Which is why the left opposes it because it threatens all holy and sacred Equality.

.....to the ambiguous notion of race.

Funny. When are you going to lecture your fellow lefties about this? They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they couldn't use race as a weapon.

BTW, if you acknowledge that different groups have different characteristics, then what term would you use to describe such groups? Is this term somehow less morally objectionable (to you) than the term "race"?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

The reason we have to secure the border first is because the reason we are where we are is because we've already been down this road. The border security was part of Simpson mazzolli and never got done which is why we are here. If we don't secure the border we will wash rinse and repeat. .... Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

That's a silly sentiment. "We have to do it first because we didn't do it before." No, what you mean is, "we have to make sure we do it." It doesn't have to come before or after we document people already here. The two are unrelated if we actually do both!

Every person that comes here illegally is competing for work with an American and probably a LEGAL immigrant as well. We already have legal immigration, work permits, etc. Not everyone residing in this country and working here legally is an American citizen. I think - hope - you are aware of this, because it seems that those on the far right - like GMM - think that by documenting illegals with work permits and visas, they can vote for Hillary in 2016 as well.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

It's not about you, it's just that the rest of us are "idiots", and we are uninformed. Got it.




Posted from Rivals Mobile

For the majority, I would prefer the term "underinformed" and thus rooting for your team. If you're on the far right with the likes of GMM where you think being called a racist is a good thing, then yes, I would consider you an idiot. Your call.

I don't know GMM, but if your one of those people that call other people you don't know or understand a racist, your the idiot.

Posted from Rivals Mobile


I don't know GMM either, but based on what I've read on here in various arguments, I believe he is racist. I can judge his views based on what he writes. You're certainly in agreement there.

 

[indyogb]

I think the reluctance to agree to "comprehensive" immigration reform is related to the fact that it has been agreed to before, and the enforcement side was never effectively executed - hence the current problems. Heck, Bush and Obama could have increased border security and neither has (or did). Republicans balked when Bush backed the comprehensive immigration reform back in '06 or '07, which demonstrates how difficult passing it would be. Or, perhaps the gridlock stems from the predominant grassroots opinion that seems to be against easing immigration (but with some wiggle room for DACA types), but the big money (on both sides) is for it in the name of cheaper labor at every level (the biggest farce of which is the "shortage" of technology workers and engineers... more like a shortage of dirt-cheap tech workers and engineers... that's a different rant for a different day, I guess ).

 

[kescwi]

GMM is a racist and proud of it but gr8 is not an idiot.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GMM]

Well......

......since I've been discussed so much in this portion of the thread I think I'll go ahead and jump in.

Every person that comes here illegally is competing for work with an American and probably a LEGAL immigrant as well.

Which is why, given that we have too much unemployment in this country, we should drastically reduce legal and illegal immigration. Along with deporting illegals or making them feel tremendously unwelcome so they'll self-deport.

I think - hope - you are aware of this, because it seems that those on the far right - like GMM - think that by documenting illegals with work permits and visas, they can vote for Hillary in 2016 as well.

Are you completely unaware of how the left operates? You shouldn't be. The continued existence of illegals in this country has been used by the left to justify welfare, schooling, driver's licenses, and other social services for illegals. Now comes amnesty or something close to amnesty. Soon they'll be demanding complete amnesty and instant citizenship. At every step along the way the illegals are portrayed as victims, hard-working, family-loving, America-loving, and filled with more potential than people born here. Why? Its all a part of the strategy to make them citizens so they can vote. And we all know which party they'll vote for. There have already been efforts to allow them to vote in local elections.

But don't worry. The Democrats will never try to allow them to vote in national elections. To think such thoughts is "racist".

BTW, what limits do you think the left puts on itself when it comes to what benefits they want to confer to illegals?

 

[GMM]

Indeed

Originally posted by kescwi:
GMM is a racist and proud of it but gr8 is not an idiot.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Proud to be a normal white person. Proud to not be a fool who actually believes there are universal principles behind the term "racist".

 

[db]

At least you answered the question: you don't like the policy.

And you'd be OK with the exec action if you liked the policy.

 

[GMM]

wrong

In case you hadn't noticed I'm for drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government. I want to transfer power from the feds back to the people in accordance with the Constitution. What Obama is doing, regardless of the policy, is moving power even further away from the people.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I wouldn't. There is a reason the US has a built-in system of checks and balances. The system is not supposed to allow a President to act like a king, a dictator, or a despot under normal cicrumstances.

If a Republican President overstepped his authority I would not like it either. Over time, it seems that the Executive Branch is trying to exert more and more authority over the Legislative branch. This is not good or healthy for our nation. This did not just start with Obama, but he seems to be stretching his limits more than previous Presidents tried.

 

[SCBoiler]

Silly? The border was supposed to be secured when Reagan was in office, but it's a long process and never got finished, if even started. Just like everything done by government if it is politically expedient money will get shifted elsewhere. I guess you trust government to do it if they say they really, really promise this time. Who's silly?

I don't know why you keep trying to pigeonhole me with GMM. I guess since he's considered a loon your trying to show your buddies that I'm a loon too.
Posted from Rivals Mobile