or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüĆĶ Obama Ends The Tyranny Of Exclusion For Mexican Migrants Under Thirty.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ūüĆĶ Obama Ends The Tyranny Of Exclusion For Mexican Migrants Under Thirty. - Page 2

Poll Results: What do you think of Obama's new policy

 
  • 0% (0)
    I'd support it only if a Republican had issued the executive order
  • 0% (0)
    I'll have to wait for Romney's opinion before I can form my own
  • 50% (2)
    I don't support it
  • 50% (2)
    I support it
4 Total Votes  
post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Now this is downright hilarious.

 

Several people have clearly, respectfully and rationally explained that what Obama is doing appears to be both an arbitrary power play and probably unconstitutional and you simply dismiss this is as "blatant fear mongering" "drivel" from "teenagers with axes to grind" who are "making up bland motives" and "feeling morally superior."

 

Priceless.

 

Barack Obama's Executive Unilateralism

 

LOL, indeed.  I've even stated that I support parts of the DREAM Act, but take serious issue with the President rewriting/ignoring the law.  Hands just doesn't like that I called him on his intellectual dishonesty and contempt for the Constitution.  He supports the policy without regard to how it was enacted.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

What if he were to choose to stop enforcing environmental laws? 'cause you know, coal plants cost a lot to replace and ... energy security depends on it ... and other stuff. What then?

 

I pointed out earlier than he could do this with ANY federal law.  Maybe he'll direct the IRS not to collect taxes on those that make less than $40,000 a year.  Or on public sector employees.  Or African-Americans.  Prosecutorial discretion! :)  

 

Right, Hands?  Hands?  

 

 

 

Hands?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hands?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #42 of 68
Thread Starter 
It takes a strong POTUS to allow a memorandum to be enacted that could even allow the high likelihood of being labeled a King in Chief in these toxically partisan times, especially now that that role is so critical to defeating terrorism, at the incongrigulity of the US's especially paranoid populace.

I can't help wonder how the dreams of these youngsters may not only be reflected in the continued role of America's promise , but also how the resources available to focus on those who pose national security threats may prevent some of the destabilising and brutal effects of gangs who's only purpose is to exploit Americans, and harm it further.

Personally, I hope that the major polluters, in response to Frank777, are challenged. The more you restrict the egregious behaviour of the worst, the more you can spare for the rest.

I see it as quite simple. Freedom can't be...unless you strangle and restrict those who's powers can entangle everyone else.

Coal would be a good comparison.


Disclaimer... If any of the above makes little sense, I blame the beer.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I see it as quite simple. Freedom can't be...unless you strangle and restrict those who's powers can entangle everyone else.

 

I agree. Let's start with Barack Obama and Congress.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 68

If Obama were actually a good leader he would have gotten the dream act, or some variation, passed and signed. That would also require compromise where Obama is incapable of. 

post #45 of 68

Maybe you should run for president and see what you can do as a leader.
 

post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Maybe you should run for president and see what you can do as a leader.
 

 

It always comes down to this kind of ridiculous personal comment with you.  As soon as this President is shown to be an abject failure, you lash out...not unlike most of the Left.  Next you'll be telling us the Presidency is too big for one man and that no one can effectively govern in these partisan times.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Maybe you should run for president and see what you can do as a leader.
 

I'm over qualified.

post #48 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Next you'll be telling us the Presidency is too big for one man and that no one can effectively govern in these partisan times.  

 

Actually...I would agree with that.

 

Granted, a large part of the reason for that is because of how big the federal government has become and how many pies it has its fingers in. If we returned to a more constitutional size (probably about 1/10 - 1/5 the current size), that might not be so much the case. But that's not going to happen which leads to the next point: I think the US has become to big and diverse to govern effectively.

 

I think it was even Thomas Jefferson though the US might have been too big even back in that day. I think a disbanded set of smaller nation-states might be more practical. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it may happen someday.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #49 of 68

Can Barack Obama Rewrite Federal Law?

 

 

 

Quote:
By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

 

 

 

Quote:
Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and that "all legislative power" in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?
 
There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it. This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence -- except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.
 
Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That's what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #50 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I'm over qualified.

Yes, you haven't sold your soul to the highest bidder.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Actually...I would agree with that.

 

Granted, a large part of the reason for that is because of how big the federal government has become and how many pies it has its fingers in. If we returned to a more constitutional size (probably about 1/10 - 1/5 the current size), that might not be so much the case. But that's not going to happen which leads to the next point: I think the US has become to big and diverse to govern effectively.

 

I think it was even Thomas Jefferson though the US might have been too big even back in that day. I think a disbanded set of smaller nation-states might be more practical. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it may happen someday.

 

Those were the arguments the Left was making when Carter was failing so miserably.  It turns out the Presidency wasn't too big...Carter was too small.  I disagree with the notion of disbanding and having smaller nation-states.  That's another position of yours (though you just sort of "floated" it, so maybe it's not a "position") that I find too extreme...no offense intended. " 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Can Barack Obama Rewrite Federal Law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent point there.  The President can likely refuse to enforce laws he finds blatantly unconstitutional.  After all, he swears to uphold the Constitution, which is (as the author notes) that law of the land.  However, I don't see an argument for the President simply disregarding law (and actually changing it) because he just doesn't like it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree with the notion of disbanding and having smaller nation-states.  That's another position of yours (though you just sort of "floated" it, so maybe it's not a "position") that I find too extreme...no offense intended. "

 

It is my position and I agree that it is an extreme position relative to today's thinking and the typical American thinking that things that have happened through the world and throughout history can never really happen here. However, it is actually worth considering. I mean the US came about as a secession/disbanding from its parental government. It's not that outrageous.

 

It's not a terrible idea really. At least it doesn't have to be. I don't know why it must be.

 

The world changes. People change. Associations and collectives change. Businesses come and go, succeed and fail. So on.

 

And when you consider the truly vast differences in culture, values, political philosophy, economic philosophy...maybe it is a better solution. I mean it might not be 50 new countries (each state) or even a dozen (a collection of regions within the US)...heck it could just be US1 and US2...one country for all of our socialist friends who want to construct their socialist Utopia (you know who you are Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, California, etc.) and the rest of us who want to be more free. So we could live in "The Free States of America" and watch in dismay as "The Social States of America" slowly declines into oblivion. ;-)

 

I don't see why nations either are or must be immune to such changes other than nostalgic sentiment.

 

But maybe I've just come to be more comfortable with such ideas.

 

There's actually a relatively new book out that discusses this idea. Can't recall the title or I'd post a link to it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

It is my position and I agree that it is an extreme position relative to today's thinking and the typical American thinking that things that have happened through the world and throughout history can never really happen here. However, it is actually worth considering. I mean the US came about as a secession/disbanding from its parental government. It's not that outrageous.

 

It's not a terrible idea really. At least it doesn't have to be. I don't know why it must be.

 

The world changes. People change. Associations and collectives change. Businesses come and go, succeed and fail. So on.

 

And when you consider the truly vast differences in culture, values, political philosophy, economic philosophy...maybe it is a better solution. I mean it might not be 50 new countries (each state) or even a dozen (a collection of regions within the US)...heck it could just be US1 and US2...one country for all of our socialist friends who want to construct their socialist Utopia (you know who you are Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, California, etc.) and the rest of us who want to be more free. So we could live in "The Free States of America" and watch in dismay as "The Social States of America" slowly declines into oblivion. ;-)

 

I don't see why nations either are or must be immune to such changes other than nostalgic sentiment.

 

But maybe I've just come to be more comfortable with such ideas.

 

There's actually a relatively new book out that discusses this idea. Can't recall the title or I'd post a link to it.

 

 

I'm not saying it's outrageous, just that I disagree with it.  As to why, well...call me a traditionalist, I suppose.  I'm a Patriot.  I think that despite all our flaws, The United States is a unique nation in world history.  Love the "you know who you are" comment, however.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not saying it's outrageous, just that I disagree with it.

 

I understand.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As to why, well...call me a traditionalist, I suppose.  I'm a Patriot.

 

I don't even know what that idea means anymore.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think that despite all our flaws, The United States is a unique nation in world history.

 

I agree, but that doesn't mean it will last forever in its current form.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I don't even know what that idea means anymore.

 

What, the word "patriot"?

 

A former president of my church put it thusly:

 

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel ‚ÄĒ ships, planes, missiles, fortifications ‚ÄĒ and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan‚Äôs counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior‚Äôs teaching:
 
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
‚ÄúThat ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven‚ÄĚ (Matthew 5:44-45).
 
Ironically, Romney is a member of the same church I am, but I don't think he understands the above quote. Indeed, he wants to INCREASE our production of "gods of stone and steel" and depend on them for protection and deliverance. He wants to send more "patriots" around the world to "keep us safe".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #56 of 68
Thread Starter 

Pelosi slams the debt ceiling as unconstitutional. Lets hope Obama has the same discernment of law as he's had over immigration when the repubs try and make the wealthiest wealthier and the poorest poorer-

 

 

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should use the 14th Amendment to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional in the event that Congress hurtles toward another debt showdown.

"I'm a big fan of the Constitution," Pelosi said during a discussion on raising the debt ceiling in a sit-down with reporters. "The credit validity of the United States shall not be in question."

Asked if she expected Obama to use the 14th Amendment as a last resort for avoiding a debt default and other economic consequences, something the president said was not an option during last year's debt stand-off, Pelosi shrugged.

"I don't have any idea. But I think he should. I think he should," she said."

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/nancy-pelosi-obama-debt-crisis_n_1613553.html?ref=topbar

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #57 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Pelosi slams the debt ceiling as unconstitutional. Lets hope Obama has the same discernment of law as he's had over immigration when the repubs try and make the wealthiest wealthier and the poorest poorer-

 

 

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should use the 14th Amendment to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional in the event that Congress hurtles toward another debt showdown.

"I'm a big fan of the Constitution," Pelosi said during a discussion on raising the debt ceiling in a sit-down with reporters. "The credit validity of the United States shall not be in question."

Asked if she expected Obama to use the 14th Amendment as a last resort for avoiding a debt default and other economic consequences, something the president said was not an option during last year's debt stand-off, Pelosi shrugged.

"I don't have any idea. But I think he should. I think he should," she said."

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/nancy-pelosi-obama-debt-crisis_n_1613553.html?ref=topbar

 

What "debt ceiling?" There is no "debt ceiling." None. Nada. Nothing. To say and believe there is to believe in the rhetorical fantasy bedtime stories told to you by politicians.

 

 

However, even there was one, I agree...we should abolish it and keep borrowing because it is this so-called "debt ceiling" that is jeopardizing the credit validity of the US.

 

*sigh*

 

They really should administer IQ tests to people before they can hold office.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

What if he were to choose to stop enforcing environmental laws? 'cause you know, coal plants cost a lot to replace and ... energy security depends on it ... and other stuff. What then?

 

This is the key issue. Our leftist friends appear not to understand the precedent their dear leader is setting, that has the potential to screw up the U.S. republic no matter which party is in office.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Maybe you should run for president and see what you can do as a leader.
 

 

This is the first time I've seen a complete, articulate, grammatically-correct sentence from you. Kudos. lol.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Personally, I hope that the major polluters, in response to Frank777, are challenged.

 

Just checked the thread and I don't see a post from me. What are you referencing?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #59 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

What, the word "patriot"?

 

A former president of my church put it thusly:

 

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel ‚ÄĒ ships, planes, missiles, fortifications ‚ÄĒ and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan‚Äôs counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior‚Äôs teaching:
 
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
‚ÄúThat ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven‚ÄĚ (Matthew 5:44-45).
 
Ironically, Romney is a member of the same church I am, but I don't think he understands the above quote. Indeed, he wants to INCREASE our production of "gods of stone and steel" and depend on them for protection and deliverance. He wants to send more "patriots" around the world to "keep us safe".

 

This sounds wonderful.  In the real world, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese if we followed that logic.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

This sounds wonderful.  In the real world, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese if we followed that logic.  

 

If Switzerland could successfully maintain a policy of armed neutrality smack dab in the middle of Europe during World War II, we certainly could have.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #61 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
Just checked the thread and I don't see a post from me. What are you referencing?

Oh, it was Floorjack's post.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #62 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

If Switzerland could successfully maintain a policy of armed neutrality smack dab in the middle of Europe during World War II, we certainly could have.

 

A pointless academic exercise.  It's not how things work today.  Our views are different here...the world is a dangerous place.  America requires military and economic strength as a result.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

A pointless academic exercise.  It's not how things work today.  Our views are different here...the world is a dangerous place.  America requires military and economic strength as a result.  

 

Now with due respect, that is the lamest dismissal I've heard. Switzerland, as jazz pointed out, remained neutral during and in the middle of an actual hot war. If you consider the comparison "a pointless academic exercise" I'm not sure what to think. Wow.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Now with due respect, that is the lamest dismissal I've heard. Switzerland, as jazz pointed out, remained neutral during and in the middle of an actual hot war. If you consider the comparison "a pointless academic exercise" I'm not sure what to think. Wow.

 

 

Not taking sides against the Nazis sure is commendable.

post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Now with due respect, that is the lamest dismissal I've heard. Switzerland, as jazz pointed out, remained neutral during and in the middle of an actual hot war. If you consider the comparison "a pointless academic exercise" I'm not sure what to think. Wow.

 

It's a copout. A refusal to engage in the arena of ideas.

 

I cited a prime example of a smaller country - in the middle of the war zone - successfully defending itself and maintaining its neutrality, and he wants to keep believing that the U.S. would have been successfully invaded and conquered if we hadn't entered the war when we did. That is simply not true.

 

The only reason we entered the war was because Roosevelt intentionally provoked the Japanese into attacking us as a pretext to join the war in Europe through the "back door".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Not taking sides against the Nazis sure is commendable.

 

I see what you've tried to do there. Clever.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

It's a copout. A refusal to engage in the arena of ideas.

 

I cited a prime example of a smaller country - in the middle of the war zone - successfully defending itself and maintaining its neutrality, and he wants to keep believing that the U.S. would have been successfully invaded and conquered if we hadn't entered the war when we did. That is simply not true.

 

The only reason we entered the war was because Roosevelt intentionally provoked the Japanese into attacking us as a pretext to join the war in Europe through the "back door".

 

Right.  We "provoked" the Japanese.  Granted, it's one view some have...that the U.S. and our economic sanctions left Japan no choice..but it's simply a point of view.  In reality, Japan launched an unprovoked attack on United States.  Now, you can argue that Roosevelt knew it would happen and wasn't particularly upset that it did, as he wanted to enter the war.  But even this isn't provable.  Either way, the point is that if the U.S. doesn't exert global influence today, someone else will.  It's naive to suggest that the world will be just fine otherwise.  Given the choice between America being globally involved and the likes of Russia, Iran, China et al, I'll take America. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 68

Don't forget to arm yourself with your weapons and protect your family and property. Like you said it's dangerous out there.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüĆĶ Obama Ends The Tyranny Of Exclusion For Mexican Migrants Under Thirty.