RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed?

RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

erieangel -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/23/2012 4:03:22 PM)
I don't think Obama has to worry about "unselling" himself to the middle over immigration. Not when he has a 34% lead over Romney for the Hispanic vote. (I doubt even a Rubio pick for VP could erase that). And 64% of Americans favor the new policy. http://www.dailypolitical.com/news/voters-favor-obama-deportation-policy.htm

TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/23/2012 4:06:21 PM)
Ron, perhaps you missed it, but the only citation of Constitutional law here is from the President, when he told a bunch of high school students why he didn't have the authority to do what he just did. A further citation from the President states that this is a political choice. Put those two items in your gobbledygooker pipe, and smoke them. Barry's van rules - hold the smoke until you exhale clear, or forfeit a turn. Then, with re-perspectived eyes, have a read of the defense of dictatorship you just posted. "Somebody has to fix it," Ron? Would that be by any means necessary, and will you swear now to support that standard when a Republican gets to pick what body of standing legislation he gets to after by Presidential (imperial?) decree?

TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/23/2012 4:08:03 PM)
Don't read to much into those numbers, Erie. I favor the policy, and I certainly won't be voting for him.

mnottertail -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/23/2012 4:11:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Ron, perhaps you missed it, but the only citation of Constitutional law here is from the President, when he told a bunch of high school students why he didn't have the authority to do what he just did. A further citation from the President states that this is a political choice. Put those two items in your gobbledygooker pipe, and smoke them. Barry's van rules - hold the smoke until you exhale clear, or forfeit a turn. Then, with re-perspectived eyes, have a read of the defense of dictatorship you just posted. "Somebody has to fix it," Ron? Would that be by any means necessary, and will you swear now to support that standard when a Republican gets to pick what body of standing legislation he gets to after by Presidential (imperial?) decree? You sure aren't brimming with intellect. But you have disingenuous impugnments and selective hearing, as well as profoundly dismal comprehension. And as usual, you haven't a clue what a 'citation of constutional law' might be, obiter dicta does not qualify. For one thing, I have intimated that I have been forced to support (whether I wanted to or not) Quisling lawlessness and disregard from every republican president since Nixon.

TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/23/2012 5:12:00 PM)
I don't know that I've ever made such a claim, Ron. Maybe it's something you dreamed up to explain me backing an 18-wheeler through a hole in some argument or another you've made? I'm smart enough to spot a tell, here and there, and you going all polysyllabic typically means you have noticed just how thin the ice is, where your ego has led you, and are hoping for a sly exit. Did you not want to stick to the endorsement of dictatorship path you were starting down? It's easy to support the goal he's working on, here. I do. But the fact that he cannot get Congress to do it, doesn't grant him the unchecked authority to go ahead anyway. Didn'r Reagan run into some issues, when he armed those rebels that Congress told him not arm? How will you be reacting, should a future, fundy-minded, Republican in the office decide that no further federal funds could go to any health institution affiliated in any way with contraceptive or abortive services providers, and the uses the Obama interpretations here as his precedent? He would believe Congress was wrong, after all. Or that student loans could not be used at medical schools that offered instruction on such matters?

Musicmystery -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/24/2012 7:59:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Here's your water, boys. Obama On Immigration: "The Only Thing That Changed Was Politics" Get those toes a-tapping, and carry it. Duh. Republicans decided in January 2009 they were going to be a wall, opposing anything, no matter what it was. Obama was idealistic and mistakenly believed he could eventually get both parties working together. He was wrong. And eventually, he said, "Fuck it, let's just do this thing ourselves." Whether that's a good idea or not, there's a long list of Presidents before him responding similarly to less total and blind opposition to anything...even if it means the House RAISING spending in defiance of the President to buy the military stuff it already made clear it doesn't want or need. Yawn. You guys want in the game? Get in the fucking game.

servantforuse -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 4:46:55 PM)
One thing changed today. Arizona law enforcement can ask for proof of citizenship on a valid traffic stop, as it should be.

Sanity -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 5:44:55 PM)
Something else thats changed, though not necessarily today Presidents now get to pick and choose which laws are enforced Think leftists will mind if, say, certain environmental laws are declared null and void by some future king, er, president For example quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse One thing changed today. Arizona law enforcement can ask for proof of citizenship on a valid traffic stop, as it should be.

Owner59 -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 5:59:18 PM)
Awww ...poor babies.....[sm=river.gif] Crying about nothing will be a great campaign strategy.....[:D]

TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 6:08:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Awww ...poor babies.....[sm=river.gif] Crying about nothing will be a great campaign strategy.....[:D] The question from right around Ron's departure off the thread, now comes to you, Owner59 quote: How will you be reacting, should a future, fundy-minded, Republican in the office decide that no further federal funds could go to any health institution affiliated in any way with contraceptive or abortive services providers, and then uses the Obama interpretations here as his precedent? He would believe Congress was wrong, after all. Or that student loans could not be used at medical schools that offered instruction on such matters?

Owner59 -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 6:12:12 PM)
The depression must be crushing.......We`re sorry.......

TheHeretic -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 6:27:00 PM)
Yawn.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 8:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`ve got a question..... How is it a "military" guy like bush... Ahhh yes.... The ol' "OH YEAH! Well Bush..." retort...

Owner59 -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 8:57:44 PM)
It`s a valid question.....considering all the yada yada about how the president wasn`t ready to lead our military yada yada....... And I hear you bring up Clinton all the time..... What....we can`t talk about history...........again? Why is that?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 9:40:13 PM)
No you don't... Unless it is as a current event.

erieangel -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 9:44:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse One thing changed today. Arizona law enforcement can ask for proof of citizenship on a valid traffic stop, as it should be. While that is technically correct, they can not use racial profiling or any other illegal reasons to ask for that proof of citizenship and the court is just waiting to hear the case of when they do.

Owner59 -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/25/2012 10:52:10 PM)
Isn`t it true that the law says one does NOT have to ID themselves to LEOs or even have an ID at all? This of course is if one isn`t breaking the law. So short of someone violating the law....they won`t be able to be asked for their "papers"......Yes? Strike umpteen against the cons......[:D]

Musicmystery -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/26/2012 4:52:40 AM)
quote: Think leftists will mind if, say, certain environmental laws are declared null and void by some future king, er, president Reagan and Bush II beat you to it.

Musicmystery -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/26/2012 4:58:38 AM)
quote: The ol' "OH YEAH! Well Bush..." retort... I wonder if about WWII, had the Internet been up and running, if Nazis would have been posting, "Oh, the old 'Blame Hitler' knee-jerk response." They will forever be associated with their leader. They're practically synonymous. If you're going to be partisan, the leader of your party fairly characterizes the party in large measure. That people would turn to the last time you were in the White House should not surprise you. Boehner, after all, isn't much of a standard bearer, except for crying "No!" and for, well, just crying. And Mitt never says anything.

Sanity -> RE: Pres. Obama, and DREAM - What changed? (6/26/2012 5:43:45 AM)
You lie just to see yourself on the thread Getting as bad as owner quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Think leftists will mind if, say, certain environmental laws are declared null and void by some future king, er, president Reagan and Bush II beat you to it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125