If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Even surrounded by the warm, soothing embrace of Fox News, Romney won't say whether he'd reverse Obama's immigration order   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 169
    More: Followup, Fox News, obama, Arab Uprisings  
•       •       •

994 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2012 at 11:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-19 08:04:26 AM
i'll say it again, rmoney gives pandering, unctuous politicians a bad name.
 
2012-06-19 10:08:41 AM
Trapped between the need to increase the Latino vote and the anti-immigration crowd in the Republican base. It's Romney's own Kobayashi Maru.
 
2012-06-19 10:15:51 AM
Romney will resist superposition at all costs. He must occupy all possible states simultaneously.

Must be using a godammed modified Heisenberg Compensator.
 
2012-06-19 10:17:11 AM
He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.
 
2012-06-19 10:21:41 AM

Sybarite: It's Romney's own Kobayashi Maru.


He'll have to reprogram himself, then.
 
2012-06-19 10:45:58 AM
Unctuous really is the perfect word for him.
 
2012-06-19 10:48:18 AM
Romney won't address President Obama's bold move directly, IMHO. He's side-step it and call for a broad comprehensive immigration policy reform ... that he'll work on once he's elected.

/You know, promise the Moon and deliver rocks.
 
2012-06-19 10:50:17 AM

weave: He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.


I dunno if a lot of the wingnut base who think Obama is a Muslim would consider Mormons to be Christians.
 
2012-06-19 11:02:11 AM
Politics is serious business and should not be entertaining. But dayum it's fun watching team Obama troll the shiat outta the right wing derpers.
 
2012-06-19 11:30:38 AM
"What is your stance on the DREAM Act?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file

"Do you think Obama made the right decision?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file

"Would you repeal his order if elected?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file

"So you'd leave it in place?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file
 
2012-06-19 11:58:51 AM

Sybarite: It's Romney's own Kobayashi Maru.


You mean the dude who eats massive amounts of hot dogs?
 
2012-06-19 11:59:32 AM

weave: He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.


Is Mormonism a sect of Catholicism? Seriously curious. It is right? They just believe that then some magical shiat happened where Jesus came to America?
 
2012-06-19 11:59:36 AM

DeltaPunch: "What is your stance on the DREAM Act?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file

"Do you think Obama made the right decision?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file

"Would you repeal his order if elected?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file

"So you'd leave it in place?"

C:\Romney>question is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file


>ABORT/RETRY/FAIL
 
2012-06-19 12:00:51 PM

Sybarite: Trapped between the need to increase the Latino vote and the anti-immigration crowd in the Republican base. It's Romney's own Kobayashi Maru.


Thus the political genius of Obama is demonstrated (yet again).


And props for the Trek reference.
 
2012-06-19 12:01:18 PM
Many of my friends own immigrants
 
2012-06-19 12:02:19 PM

L Buff: Thus the political genius of Obama is demonstrated (yet again).


Obama is nothing special.
 
2012-06-19 12:02:28 PM

justtray: Is Mormonism a sect of Catholicism? Seriously curious. It is right? They just believe that then some magical shiat happened where Jesus came to America?


Nnnnooo. There's a lot more to it than that.
 
2012-06-19 12:03:30 PM

FrailChild: L Buff: Thus the political genius of Obama is demonstrated (yet again).

Obama is nothing special.


As Seen On:
The Lonely Conservative
 
2012-06-19 12:04:12 PM

justtray: weave: He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.

Is Mormonism a sect of Catholicism? Seriously curious. It is right? They just believe that then some magical shiat happened where Jesus came to America?


pffft...you silly lib, Catholics aren't even Real Christians
 
2012-06-19 12:04:39 PM
Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.
 
2012-06-19 12:04:41 PM

justtray: Is Mormonism a sect of Catholicism? Seriously curious. It is right? They just believe that then some magical shiat happened where Jesus came to America?


It's more closely related Calvanist protestantism, I believe. But it's not a sub-sect of anything else, it's a wholly unique entity of it's own.
 
2012-06-19 12:04:52 PM
Nobody should be surprised by this. He basically gave up the game awhile ago when he admitted that he won't name specific federal departments he wants to close (except for behind closed doors of course) because then Obama and the Democrats would have specific stuff to attack him with.
 
2012-06-19 12:06:31 PM
"Actually, as soon as I get elected hopefully, I will start working on this issue and hopefully be ready to go immediately."

Ah, yes, the "private sector" response.

"Do you have a quote for how much my car repair might cost me?"
"No, but let me start working on it and I'll let you know how much it costs. After I have it taken apart and you can't move it to anyone else."

"How much is this loaf of bread."
"I don't know, but if you run it through the cash register over there and let me charge you, I'll tell you what it will cost."

"So, Joe Plumber, after looking at my leaky sink, how much do you think you'll charge for this? Do you have an estimate?"
"Sorry, I can't tell you until I start to work on it. But I'll clearly give you a cost when the job is so far through that you can't turn me down. How does that sound?"

In general, using a guy that won't give you an estimate BEFORE he starts work on something, is usually NOT the guy you want to work on it. But I guess Romney's the kind of guy you can have caviar with, so it's all good.
 
2012-06-19 12:07:06 PM

Diogenes: Romney will resist superposition at all costs. He must occupy all possible states simultaneously.

Must be using a godammed modified Heisenberg Compensator.


Thing is he can't keep it up. Sooner or later he's going to have to take a firm position because the minority vote isn't going to wait until the last minute. And all it's going to take is one stumble, an errant phrase or two to swing the Latino vote to the Democrats.
 
2012-06-19 12:08:28 PM
TFA: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said

According to this and this, Romney already has his first day mapped out in enough detail to draft five bills and five executive orders. So I suppose he doesn't need to wait and see the calendar after all.
 
2012-06-19 12:08:36 PM

aug3: Catholics aren't even Real Christians


it's true; they bow to a foreign dictator. christ was clearly an american.
 
2012-06-19 12:09:18 PM
www.moonofalabama.org
 
2012-06-19 12:09:38 PM

Cletus C.: Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.


Aren't you the same person who was on here last week whining about being unfairly labeled a troll?
 
2012-06-19 12:10:02 PM

Cletus C.: Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.


So we are back to the president being some sort of national daddy, again?
 
2012-06-19 12:11:04 PM

The Homer Tax: Cletus C.: Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.

Aren't you the same person who was on here last week whining about being unfairly labeled a troll?


I don't know. Maybe. Am I supposed to be keeping track of the things I say?
 
2012-06-19 12:11:08 PM
The policy is the right thing to do. It'll be amusing when ICE deports a 31-year-old, who hasn't been outside the US since he/she was two.
 
2012-06-19 12:12:22 PM

BSABSVR: Cletus C.: Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.

So we are back to the president being some sort of national daddy, again?


I don't get that. But it has a faint aroma of racism.
 
2012-06-19 12:13:07 PM
"I'll uh...do what the voters want."

"Which voters?"

*head explodes*
 
2012-06-19 12:13:26 PM

Cletus C.: I don't know. Maybe. Am I supposed to be keeping track of the things I say?


So you are a troll, good to know.
 
2012-06-19 12:14:24 PM

sprawl15: >ABORT/RETRY/FAIL


can't say "ABORT". he'll never get elected then...
 
2012-06-19 12:17:14 PM

Flappyhead: Diogenes: Romney will resist superposition at all costs. He must occupy all possible states simultaneously.

Must be using a godammed modified Heisenberg Compensator.

Thing is he can't keep it up. Sooner or later he's going to have to take a firm position because the minority vote isn't going to wait until the last minute. And all it's going to take is one stumble, an errant phrase or two to swing the Latino vote to the Democrats.


Romney wants to wait until closer to the actual vote to say definitively whether he wants to alienate his base or every latino in America. That's really going to bite him in the ass in the future. If he doesn't have something more concrete by the debates, he'll get hit so hard, all 8 of his grandmothers will feel it.
 
2012-06-19 12:18:19 PM
Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action
 
2012-06-19 12:18:35 PM

weave: He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.


Taking a stand would make the issue go away.

Sitting on a fence, that's a dangerous course.
You could even catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force.
 
2012-06-19 12:20:50 PM
The only universal, fundamental principle in American politics is this: if you aren't playing offense, you're playing defense.

Team Romney has exactly one option here... change the subject. Hard.
 
2012-06-19 12:24:14 PM

Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action


I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.
 
2012-06-19 12:27:39 PM

Mr_Fabulous: The only universal, fundamental principle in American politics is this: if you aren't playing offense, you're playing defense.

Team Romney has exactly one option here... change the subject. Hard.


That is the main advantage that Obama has. He can influence the agenda because he can actually direct policy. All Romney can do is talk. He hasn't been in government in half a decade.
 
2012-06-19 12:28:46 PM

Serious Black: Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action

I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.


I was thinking he was going to cut off all aid to Israel.
 
2012-06-19 12:29:08 PM
Damned if he does and if he does not.

//crackers to the right of me, brown people to the left of me, here I am stuck in the middle with no opinion.
 
2012-06-19 12:29:41 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Serious Black: Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action

I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.

I was thinking he was going to cut off all aid to Israel.


Not after Sheldon Adelson finished giving his hundreds of millions of dollars to get Romney elected.
 
2012-06-19 12:30:17 PM

Serious Black: HotWingConspiracy: Serious Black: Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action

I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.

I was thinking he was going to cut off all aid to Israel.

Not after Sheldon Adelson finished giving his hundreds of millions of dollars to get Romney elected.


But...opposite.
 
2012-06-19 12:31:20 PM
I don't know why Romney doesn't say he would reject Obama's directive and tell congress to do their job and pass something.

It appeals to the base by rejecting something Obama wanted.

It appeals to Latinos by saying he wants permanent reform.

It's no more of a willful misdirection than he already is using. That is the exact type of "saying something while saying nothing" statement that would just get passed on by television and print media, who could then move on to some other story. Instead, his attempt to avoid any statement has made this a multi-cycle story about how he has been outmaneuvered by Obama and that he can't take a position on anything. Bad all around for him.
 
2012-06-19 12:32:53 PM
We need a STRONG leader like Romney NOT an EMPTY SUIT like 0Bama. With Romney real leadership he'll sit around and let congress take their time to decide, if they decide anything, and then will think about it. Not like the EMPTY SUIT 0-Fartbongo who shows no leadership by passing wussy orders around to fix issues because congress hasn't done it yet.
 
2012-06-19 12:33:59 PM

moops: Sybarite: It's Romney's own Kobayashi Maru.

You mean the dude who eats massive amounts of hot dogs?


No, he's talking about that adorable cat who loves boxes.
 
2012-06-19 12:34:55 PM
ADOPT/RETRY/FAIL
 
2012-06-19 12:35:01 PM
"You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said, according to transcripts released by Fox News. "What I can tell you is that those people who come here by virtue of their parents bringing them here, who came in illegally, that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

So when he said he would go around congress to cancel "Obamacare" on day one, that is now a lie?
 
2012-06-19 12:35:03 PM

AirForceVet: Romney won't address President Obama's bold move directly, IMHO. He's side-step it and call for a broad comprehensive immigration policy reform ... that he'll work on once he's elected.

/You know, promise the Moon and deliver rocks.


I've only heard one acceptable reason for this: if he actually gives real details to his plans on any issue, he has to worry about Obama pushing those exact same policies through Congress and either gets some positive bipartisan stuff accomplished, or he has to claim he will somehow get the policy through despite his own party already voting against it. This is an article arguing that's why Romney is so vague on economic issues, but it fits the current immigration issue perfectly.

Romney has made sure that his position is simply "the opposite of Obama", and whenever he is pressed for details he just says he'll outline his plan once the election is over so that it can't be unfairly attacked by Obama.
 
2012-06-19 12:35:14 PM

FlashHarry: aug3: Catholics aren't even Real Christians

it's true; they bow to a foreign dictator. christ was clearly an american.


I'm going to write a terrible book about Jesus Christ called "The First American" then I'm going to fly to your house in a Harrier I've leased to own and I'm going to beat you unconscious with stacks of $100s so you'll know exactly how bad to feel about yourself for this idea you've put in my head.
 
2012-06-19 12:35:41 PM
Romney said "...that's something I don't want to football with..."

If that's not a misquote (missing the word "play"), that's got to be a meme in the making.
 
2012-06-19 12:37:06 PM

Grungehamster: AirForceVet: Romney won't address President Obama's bold move directly, IMHO. He's side-step it and call for a broad comprehensive immigration policy reform ... that he'll work on once he's elected.

/You know, promise the Moon and deliver rocks.

I've only heard one acceptable reason for this: if he actually gives real details to his plans on any issue, he has to worry about Obama pushing those exact same policies through Congress and either gets some positive bipartisan stuff accomplished, or he has to claim he will somehow get the policy through despite his own party already voting against it. This is an article arguing that's why Romney is so vague on economic issues, but it fits the current immigrationevery political issue issue perfectly.

Romney has made sure that his position is simply "the opposite of Obama", and whenever he is pressed for details he just says he'll outline his plan once the election is over so that it can't be unfairly attacked by Obama.


FTFY, buddy.
 
2012-06-19 12:44:51 PM
I thought he was severely conservative.

asshat.
 
2012-06-19 12:45:54 PM

Corvus: [desmond.imageshack.us image 639x350]
"You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third,... that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

See that's REAL LEADERSHIP LIBTARDS!!!111one


He doesn't want to football with it? Is he in sport? I asked him if he was in sport, maybe footballery, but he said he wasn't in sport.
 
2012-06-19 12:47:09 PM
"Well, when we talk about illegal immigration I think I want to start by saying we need to secure the border, we've got to have an employment verification system, and then with regards to these children who came here brought in by their parents who came in here illegally, how we deal with them is something I think that deserves a long term solution and I don't think we go jumping from one solution to the other,"

So the plan of the Party of Small GovernmentTM is to install a brand spankin' new bureaucracy to verify resident employment and $50 billion just to build a border fence, much less police it. How's this for an idea? Ditch the Immigration Gestapo and hire illegal aliens to maintain and police the border fence; kill two birds with one stone.
 
2012-06-19 12:48:36 PM

ps69: Corvus: [desmond.imageshack.us image 639x350]
"You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third,... that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

See that's REAL LEADERSHIP LIBTARDS!!!111one

He doesn't want to football with it? Is he in sport? I asked him if he was in sport, maybe footballery, but he said he wasn't in sport.


I think this was the sentence that caused Romney's programmers to say, "hey, that sounds vaguely like English, let's go live." On that day, a literal running for President machine was born.
 
2012-06-19 12:49:02 PM

Mr_Fabulous: The only universal, fundamental principle in American politics is this: if you aren't playing offense, you're playing defense.

Team Romney has exactly one option here... change the subject. Hard.


Team Obama has two options here...

1) Hammer the hell out of Romney on this point.
2) Let Romney change the subject.

Since Obama a Democrat, it's pretty clear they're going to go with #2.
 
2012-06-19 12:50:32 PM
Romney is just the kind of decision maker we need in the White House.
 
2012-06-19 12:51:22 PM

Aarontology: weave: He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.

I dunno if a lot of the wingnut base who think Obama is a Muslim would consider Mormons to be Christians.


That's what gets me. Obama has professed his belief in Christ and the resurrection so he's going to Heaven. Romney rejects the resurrection that paid for our sins so he is going to Hell.

Somewhere in the Bible is a rule that being a Republican gets you a pass and being a Democrat is the unforgivable sin.
 
2012-06-19 12:51:55 PM

Corvus: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third,... that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."


Do we want a President to take this approach if there were ever a phone call at 3 a.m?
I didn't think so.
 
2012-06-19 12:52:07 PM
They spent a lot of time and money on a campaign to woo Latino voters and Obama destroyed it with a predator drone last week before it could even get started. He's still a bit shell shocked.
 
2012-06-19 12:52:51 PM

clambam: "Well, when we talk about illegal immigration I think I want to start by saying we need to secure the border, we've got to have an employment verification system, and then with regards to these children who came here brought in by their parents who came in here illegally, how we deal with them is something I think that deserves a long term solution and I don't think we go jumping from one solution to the other,"

So the plan of the Party of Small GovernmentTM is to install a brand spankin' new bureaucracy to verify resident employment and $50 billion just to build a border fence, much less police it. How's this for an idea? Ditch the Immigration Gestapo and hire illegal aliens to maintain and police the border fence; kill two birds with one stone.


IIRC from the Republican debates, he doesn't want to install a new bureaucracy, he wants to contract that out to Visa or one of the big banks.
 
2012-06-19 12:55:40 PM
So are you going to have kids?

Well me and my wife have been discussing it, but it's a big decision and we don't want to football it.
 
2012-06-19 12:55:48 PM

apoptotic: clambam: "Well, when we talk about illegal immigration I think I want to start by saying we need to secure the border, we've got to have an employment verification system, and then with regards to these children who came here brought in by their parents who came in here illegally, how we deal with them is something I think that deserves a long term solution and I don't think we go jumping from one solution to the other,"

So the plan of the Party of Small GovernmentTM is to install a brand spankin' new bureaucracy to verify resident employment and $50 billion just to build a border fence, much less police it. How's this for an idea? Ditch the Immigration Gestapo and hire illegal aliens to maintain and police the border fence; kill two birds with one stone.

IIRC from the Republican debates, he doesn't want to install a new bureaucracy, he wants to contract that out to Visa or one of the big banks.


"All right, your application is in order. We just need your $15 Resident Verification Fee and we'll be sure to not call you back since we filled the position last week."
 
2012-06-19 12:56:18 PM

clambam: "Well, when we talk about illegal immigration I think I want to start by saying we need to secure the border, we've got to have an employment verification system, and then with regards to these children who came here brought in by their parents who came in here illegally, how we deal with them is something I think that deserves a long term solution and I don't think we go jumping from one solution to the other,"

So the plan of the Party of Small GovernmentTM is to install a brand spankin' new bureaucracy to verify resident employment and $50 billion just to build a border fence, much less police it. How's this for an idea? Ditch the Immigration Gestapo and hire illegal aliens to maintain and police the border fence; kill two birds with one stone.


To be fair, it doesn't have to be a new bureaucracy, we already have E-Verify. Of course, the fact that E-Verify doesn't actually catch illegal immigrants half the time means it probably isn't the best solution.

Romney's answers on the border and E-Verify are fairly boilerplate, which is what makes his evasion on the issue of the DREAM act so rediculous. Making sure to say we need to discuss the issue of illegal immigration by those who are brought here by their parents, while making sure to not say if he thinks this discussion should fall on the side of "we need to boot them all out, zero tolerance", "we need to set up a path to citizenship", or some middle ground like what DHS has now begun doing.
 
2012-06-19 12:56:24 PM

Muta: Corvus: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third,... that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

Do we want a President to take this approach if there were ever a phone call at 3 a.m?
I didn't think so.


That would make a great ad. The phone rings at the White House at 3am, Romney answers it, then the clock ticks by to 4:30, then 5:45, etc., and Romney is still equivocating and stumbling and not giving a clear answer on what to do.
 
2012-06-19 12:56:39 PM

FrailChild: L Buff: Thus the political genius of Obama is demonstrated (yet again).

Obama is nothing special.



Which explains the need to remove the Authoritarian Dictator from office before he destroys America single-handedly through Socialist Communism.
 
2012-06-19 12:58:15 PM

quizzical: TFA: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said

According to this and this, Romney already has his first day mapped out in enough detail to draft five bills and five executive orders. So I suppose he doesn't need to wait and see the calendar after all.


So let me get this straight, the Republicans are up in arms about the President using an executive order to get things done but Romney is going to use 5 of them on the first day?
 
2012-06-19 12:58:50 PM

apoptotic: clambam: "Well, when we talk about illegal immigration I think I want to start by saying we need to secure the border, we've got to have an employment verification system, and then with regards to these children who came here brought in by their parents who came in here illegally, how we deal with them is something I think that deserves a long term solution and I don't think we go jumping from one solution to the other,"

So the plan of the Party of Small GovernmentTM is to install a brand spankin' new bureaucracy to verify resident employment and $50 billion just to build a border fence, much less police it. How's this for an idea? Ditch the Immigration Gestapo and hire illegal aliens to maintain and police the border fence; kill two birds with one stone.

IIRC from the Republican debates, he doesn't want to install a new bureaucracy, he wants to contract that out to Visa or one of the big banks.


Oops! Upon looking into it, I see that that was Gingrich. Romney was pushing "self-deportation".
 
2012-06-19 12:59:30 PM

astonrickenbach: So let me get this straight, the Republicans are up in arms about the President using an executive order to get things done but Romney is going to use 5 of them on the first day?


To be fair, no one can trust anything Romney says.
 
2012-06-19 01:00:25 PM
How could he be anything but vehemently ambivalent about this? Who isn't?
 
2012-06-19 01:02:41 PM

apoptotic: Oops! Upon looking into it, I see that that was Gingrich. Romney was pushing "self-deportation".


Which was originally a joke.
 
2012-06-19 01:03:21 PM

astonrickenbach: quizzical: TFA: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said

According to this and this, Romney already has his first day mapped out in enough detail to draft five bills and five executive orders. So I suppose he doesn't need to wait and see the calendar after all.

So let me get this straight, the Republicans are up in arms about the President using an executive order to get things done but Romney is going to use 5 of them on the first day?


Yes, but all of Mitt Romney's executive orders will be freedom-loving, capitalist-supporting, exceptionally American executive orders, and Obama's executive order was an anti-American, freedom-crushing, dirty pinko Commie socialist executive order. That's the difference.
 
2012-06-19 01:03:29 PM
Romney thinks he can get the most votes by saying the least on the campaign trail because then he's not actively pissing anyone off by doing so. He saw McCain lose last time out after correcting a woman at a townhall who called Obama a Muslim and thought to himself "There's a mistake I won't be making". That's why he's not taking Trump to task for his retarded birthrism, why he didn't correct the crazy cat lady at his event who called Obama a "traitor" and it's also why he won't be pinned down on any issue with anything resembling specifics. To a certain extent I understand why this is. If he does say anything specific he'll either piss off the farktarded base or the independent and moderate voters he needs. He's basically just a massive pander-bear who refuses to do anything that even remotely resembles leadership. Sadly, about 40% of the people who actually vote in the US will end up voting for him purely because he's not Obama, not a Dem and not a Ni*BONG*. That noted he's done absolutely nothing to endear himself to the thinking, independent voter.

He's an overly-monied, underly-principled milquetoast seeking the presidency purely for personal pride and for vested self interest.

A nation would elect such a man would deserve him.

/Interesting times, all that.
 
2012-06-19 01:04:39 PM

astonrickenbach: quizzical: TFA: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said

According to this and this, Romney already has his first day mapped out in enough detail to draft five bills and five executive orders. So I suppose he doesn't need to wait and see the calendar after all.

So let me get this straight, the Republicans are up in arms about the President using an executive order to get things done but Romney is going to use 5 of them on the first day?


YEP! They don't do well with cognitive dissonance.
 
2012-06-19 01:05:36 PM
"Romney won't say whether he'd reverse Obama's immigration order"

So Romney is proves that he is willing and able to ignore Constitutional process and the rule of law - just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... [...]

My, what a refreshing change.
 
2012-06-19 01:06:05 PM
Romney refuses to take the bait?

Liberals should just video Romney talking about it, and then just edit the video to have Romney say whatever they want Romney to say.

Then send the video to CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. So, they can report on this BREAKING NEWS story.They know how to do that.
 
2012-06-19 01:06:39 PM
"I'll tell you what my policy is if you elect me."
 
2012-06-19 01:06:46 PM

Alphax: apoptotic: Oops! Upon looking into it, I see that that was Gingrich. Romney was pushing "self-deportation".

Which was originally a joke.


Bwahaha. I'm actually starting to feel a little bit sorry for Romney. He just wants it SO BAD and he's so hopelessly inept.
 
2012-06-19 01:07:30 PM

astonrickenbach: quizzical: TFA: "You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said

According to this and this, Romney already has his first day mapped out in enough detail to draft five bills and five executive orders. So I suppose he doesn't need to wait and see the calendar after all.

So let me get this straight, the Republicans are up in arms about the President using an executive order to get things done but Romney is going to use 5 of them on the first day?


I don't know if this is accounted in your list but he is running on stopping Obamacare all through executive commands. His main thing he is running on is the thing they just said Obama can't/shouldn't so.
 
2012-06-19 01:08:40 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Romney refuses to take the bait?


The "Bait" is him actually telling us his position on issues and what he would do as president? What kind of leadership is that?
 
2012-06-19 01:08:45 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Romney refuses to take the bait?

Liberals should just video Romney talking about it, and then just edit the video to have Romney say whatever they want Romney to say.

Then send the video to CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. So, they can report on this BREAKING NEWS story.They know how to do that.


We would edit it, but Fox News did it for us.
 
2012-06-19 01:09:41 PM
www.politifake.org

Don't forget to vote.
 
2012-06-19 01:10:43 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Liberals should just video Romney talking about it, and then just edit the video to have Romney say whatever they want Romney to say.

Then send the video to CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. So, they can report on this BREAKING NEWS story.They know how to do that.


Pssst! it was Fox "News".
 
2012-06-19 01:10:57 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Romney refuses to take the bait?

Liberals should just video Romney talking about it, and then just edit the video to have Romney say whatever they want Romney to say.

Then send the video to CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. So, they can report on this BREAKING NEWS story.They know how to do that.


You are now, after months and months and months of harping about ACORN, now you have the audacity to claim it's the LIBS that are manipulating video to produce a false narrative?

Dear lord, have you no shame?
 
2012-06-19 01:14:23 PM

Serious Black: Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action

I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.


It may even mean he would start a nuclear war with Israel. Who knows? What a wonderfully flexible position.
 
2012-06-19 01:15:17 PM

Amos Quito: Don't forget to vote.


The only foreign aid to dictators that President Obama gave was in the form of F/A-18s dropping bombs in Libya. Remember how the GOP howled about that? Remember when Romney was against that?

Oh yeah, both sides are so the same.
 
2012-06-19 01:15:41 PM

FrailChild: L Buff: Thus the political genius of Obama is demonstrated (yet again).

Obama is nothing special.


The president of the united states is always something special. Cause there's only one of them at a time. In the entire history of the united states, there have been 44 humans who have held that office. Of a billion people or so... 44 held the office.

0.00000044% is pretty farking special, imo. And this particular one didn't even have daddy's help!
 
2012-06-19 01:17:40 PM

Amos Quito: [www.politifake.org image 640x492]

Don't forget to vote.


My Paultard acquaintances are passing this around.
 
2012-06-19 01:18:03 PM
"What I can tell you is that those people who come here by virtue of their parents bringing them here, who came in illegally, that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

"I don't want to football with as a political matter"?

YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

This isn't tea at Aunt Martha's where it's appropriate to politely demur on your actual political beliefs because WASPs hate starting arguments on occasions where you eat shortbread and little sandwiches.
 
2012-06-19 01:18:07 PM

apoptotic: Alphax: apoptotic: Oops! Upon looking into it, I see that that was Gingrich. Romney was pushing "self-deportation".

Which was originally a joke.

Bwahaha. I'm actually starting to feel a little bit sorry for Romney. He just wants it SO BAD and he's so hopelessly inept.


I wonder when the last time Romney didn't get something he wanted was...
 
2012-06-19 01:18:41 PM

imontheinternet: Flappyhead: Diogenes: Romney will resist superposition at all costs. He must occupy all possible states simultaneously.

Must be using a godammed modified Heisenberg Compensator.

Thing is he can't keep it up. Sooner or later he's going to have to take a firm position because the minority vote isn't going to wait until the last minute. And all it's going to take is one stumble, an errant phrase or two to swing the Latino vote to the Democrats.

Romney wants to wait until closer to the actual vote to say definitively whether he wants to alienate his base or every latino in America. That's really going to bite him in the ass in the future. If he doesn't have something more concrete by the debates, he'll get hit so hard, all 8 of his grandmothers will feel it.


Which is one reason he benefited from a drawn out primary. But he's the GOP's man now - he's going to have to answer to some specifics.
 
2012-06-19 01:19:38 PM
The Republican response (or lack of one) to this is amazingly bad politics. Romney is just standing there shellshocked like a drooling mental patient. No way Obama loses to this clown.
 
2012-06-19 01:20:19 PM

Amos Quito: [www.politifake.org image 640x492]

Don't forget to vote.


That has got to be one of the worst, weakest "both sides are bad" I've seen.
 
2012-06-19 01:20:57 PM

brukmann: Serious Black: Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action

I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.

It may even mean he would start a nuclear war with Israel. Who knows? What a wonderfully flexible position.


Now that would be amusing.
 
2012-06-19 01:22:58 PM

Geotpf: No way Obama loses to this clown.


I wouldn't go that far.
 
2012-06-19 01:24:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Mr_Fabulous: The only universal, fundamental principle in American politics is this: if you aren't playing offense, you're playing defense.

Team Romney has exactly one option here... change the subject. Hard.

That is the main advantage that Obama has. He can influence the agenda because he can actually direct policy. All Romney can do is talk. He hasn't been in government in half a decade.


Truth be told when he was "in" government, he was out of the state most of the time.
 
2012-06-19 01:25:02 PM

Felgraf: barneyfifesbullet: Romney refuses to take the bait?

Liberals should just video Romney talking about it, and then just edit the video to have Romney say whatever they want Romney to say.

Then send the video to CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. So, they can report on this BREAKING NEWS story.They know how to do that.

You are now, after months and months and months of harping about ACORN, now you have the audacity to claim it's the LIBS that are manipulating video to produce a false narrative?

Dear lord, have you no shame?


Of course not: the point is that an example of an out of context quote (which was part of a still ridiculous speech and whose full context had been made available by NPR among other sources) which made Romney sound a little goofy shows a concerted media conspiracy to make Romney look bad.

It provides excellent cover for the fact that Romney refuses to explain his position on any issue beyond "I'll handle it differently than Obama". See, if he explains it you'll edit it to say something different, so the liberal media is stopping him from taking any positions!
 
2012-06-19 01:28:07 PM

Cletus C.: BSABSVR: Cletus C.: Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.

So we are back to the president being some sort of national daddy, again?

I don't get that. But it has a faint aroma of racism.


The conservative argument is that the government should not be in charge of picking winners and losers. Frank Foreclosure should pay his bills and Nancy Noraise should work harder or get a better job. So other than kissing their boo-boos and making it all better, how would a different president help them out in any way?
 
2012-06-19 01:28:27 PM
What's it matter? Rmoney can say whatever he wants, cause..
www.hostingbytes.us
 
2012-06-19 01:30:54 PM

BeesNuts: apoptotic: Alphax: apoptotic: Oops! Upon looking into it, I see that that was Gingrich. Romney was pushing "self-deportation".

Which was originally a joke.

Bwahaha. I'm actually starting to feel a little bit sorry for Romney. He just wants it SO BAD and he's so hopelessly inept.

I wonder when the last time Romney didn't get something he wanted was...


2008
 
2012-06-19 01:31:13 PM

bobbette: "What I can tell you is that those people who come here by virtue of their parents bringing them here, who came in illegally, that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

"I don't want to football with as a political matter"?

YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

This isn't tea at Aunt Martha's where it's appropriate to politely demur on your actual political beliefs because WASPs hate starting arguments on occasions where you eat shortbread and little sandwiches.


Oh... I try not to think too much about that, Maebel. Dwelling on problems like that... it steals years of life from people like us. Leave the problems to the people that have them, dear. Now, please pass me one of those cucumber finger sandwiches. They are absolutely *delectable*.
 
2012-06-19 01:32:06 PM

bobbette: "What I can tell you is that those people who come here by virtue of their parents bringing them here, who came in illegally, that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

"I don't want to football with as a political matter"?

YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

This isn't tea at Aunt Martha's where it's appropriate to politely demur on your actual political beliefs because WASPs hate starting arguments on occasions where you eat shortbread and little sandwiches.


Who says things like "football with"? Worst. Verbing. Ever.
 
2012-06-19 01:32:48 PM

Amos Quito: So Romney is proves that he is willing and able to ignore Constitutional process and the rule of law - just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... [...]


Are you stupid, or simply ignorant? Perhaps you would do well to learn just a little bit about administrative law. Start with the "take care" clause of the Constitution (Art. II, sec. 3), then work through the Administrative Procedures Act. You might also want to look at some of the leading Supreme Court precedent in this area, starting with Wayman v. Southard (1825). And then go soak your head, because you stink up every thread in which you ever post.
 
2012-06-19 01:34:12 PM

BSABSVR: Who says things like "football with"? Worst. Verbing. Ever.


Romney verbs all the nouns, especially "to douchebag".
 
2012-06-19 01:41:46 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Romney refuses to take the bait?

Liberals should just video Romney talking about it, and then just edit the video to have Romney say whatever they want Romney to say.

Then send the video to CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. So, they can report on this BREAKING NEWS story.They know how to do that.


Well you being a Republican maybe you can answer for him, will he reverse it? Yes or no?
 
2012-06-19 01:43:56 PM

bobbette: "What I can tell you is that those people who come here by virtue of their parents bringing them here, who came in illegally, that's something I don't want to football with as a political matter."

"I don't want to football with as a political matter"?

YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

This isn't tea at Aunt Martha's where it's appropriate to politely demur on your actual political beliefs because WASPs hate starting arguments on occasions where you eat shortbread and little sandwiches.


He's really terrible at this. The standard way to ignore the issue is to simply say that this is what his opponents want to talk about because they want to change the subject from the economy. Every politician worth his salt knows the best way to change the subject is to respond to the question by accusing your opponent of changing the subject. Just do it consistently and the media has nothing to report.

Instead, Romney is telling reporters that this is an issue he's not comfortable discussing because it is a political hot button and as a result talking about his position on it can only hurt him. Can you think of an argument that could cause political reporters to chatter more than that?
 
2012-06-19 01:51:58 PM
Come on guys, this is a BS political issue Romney want's to talk about REAL issues like which sandwich chains have better sandwiches!!!
 
2012-06-19 01:53:02 PM

Grungehamster: Instead, Romney is telling reporters that this is an issue he's not comfortable discussing because it is a political hot button and as a result talking about his position on it can only hurt him.


I think Romney likes to refer to this as "Real Leadership".
 
2012-06-19 01:53:06 PM

BeesNuts: I wonder when the last time Romney didn't get something he wanted was...


There's a reason you don't see Bapp in any of those incredibly photogenic pictures of the Romney family.
 
2012-06-19 01:56:37 PM

Jackson Herring: BeesNuts: I wonder when the last time Romney didn't get something he wanted was...

There's a reason you don't see Bapp in any of those incredibly photogenic pictures of the Romney family.


snert
 
2012-06-19 01:58:06 PM

Jackson Herring: There's a reason you don't see Bapp in any of those incredibly photogenic pictures of the Romney family.


The very last photo of him:

i194.photobucket.com

His shirt was just too close in color to Treg's.
 
2012-06-19 02:02:43 PM

BSABSVR: Cletus C.: BSABSVR: Cletus C.: Very clever of the Obama machine to give Romney shiny balls to chase.

The big question is whether Frank Forclosure and Nancy Noraise are willing to be diverted by the issue du jour or will be more influenced in November by the suck that is the economy.

So we are back to the president being some sort of national daddy, again?

I don't get that. But it has a faint aroma of racism.

The conservative argument is that the government should not be in charge of picking winners and losers. Frank Foreclosure should pay his bills and Nancy Noraise should work harder or get a better job. So other than kissing their boo-boos and making it all better, how would a different president help them out in any way?


The Great American Electorate is suckers for hope and change.
 
2012-06-19 02:08:03 PM
Wow seriously though, WTF Bapp?

j.wigflip.com
 
2012-06-19 02:09:03 PM

Grungehamster: Instead, Romney is telling reporters that this is an issue he's not comfortable discussing because it is a political hot button and as a result talking about his position on it can only hurt him. Can you think of an argument that could cause political reporters to chatter more than that?


I agree with you there. What's really surprising to me is that reporters aren't jumping on this, and Romney's obvious predicament of being unable to effectively take any political position because the radicalism of his base and previous positions are incompatible with swing state preferences. British reporters would be all over him like rabid wolverines. Canadian reporters would be beating him down gleefully the way they do at the slightest sign of ineffective leadership or party divisions.

So what's the deal with the Beltway's myopia here? It's even worse than it usually is.
 
2012-06-19 02:18:06 PM

BMulligan: Amos Quito: So Romney is proves that he is willing and able to ignore Constitutional process and the rule of law - just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... [...]

Are you stupid, or simply ignorant? Perhaps you would do well to learn just a little bit about administrative law. Start with the "take care" clause of the Constitution (Art. II, sec. 3),



Okay, let's go!

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

"...[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."




What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

The DREAM ACT, which does nothing more than a dream, because it does not exist???

The President has no authority to make laws, Congress does. What law has Congress passed that Obama is "taking care" of, BMulligan?

Tell us how what he is doing (and his predecessors before him have done) is Constitutionally sound. won't you BMulligan???

Explain how seizing power by pulling shiat out of your ass is a Presidential Power, okay?


BMulligan: And then go soak your head, because you stink up every thread in which you ever post.


Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?


/Anxiously awaiting your brilliant response
 
2012-06-19 02:18:33 PM

bobbette: Grungehamster: Instead, Romney is telling reporters that this is an issue he's not comfortable discussing because it is a political hot button and as a result talking about his position on it can only hurt him. Can you think of an argument that could cause political reporters to chatter more than that?

I agree with you there. What's really surprising to me is that reporters aren't jumping on this, and Romney's obvious predicament of being unable to effectively take any political position because the radicalism of his base and previous positions are incompatible with swing state preferences. British reporters would be all over him like rabid wolverines. Canadian reporters would be beating him down gleefully the way they do at the slightest sign of ineffective leadership or party divisions.

So what's the deal with the Beltway's myopia here? It's even worse than it usually is.


I believe our media's response would be "The issue is too complicated/charged, so we're patiently waiting for the next gaffe to cover".

Aka "Go away, 'baitin"
 
2012-06-19 02:21:37 PM

Serious Black: Bendal: Has Rmoney actually described ANY policy he would put in place if he is elected President? Other than "get tough with China" on trade, that is (whatever that means).

/can't think of even one
//all talk and no action

I believe he said he would specifically do the exact opposite of what Obama has done with regards to Israel. I presume that means he would start a nuclear war with Iran.


He also wants to give a tax break to the rich, expand DOD spending by $2.1 trillion with a T, and kill the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Oh, and that Medicaid "block grant" idea. I think that's about it as far as specifics go, however.
 
2012-06-19 02:22:13 PM

sweetmelissa31: Wow seriously though, WTF Bapp?

[j.wigflip.com image 615x405]


so weird to see ann in her pre-bird shirt days
 
2012-06-19 02:28:33 PM

phyrkrakr: He also wants to give a tax break to the rich, expand DOD spending by $2.1 trillion with a T, and kill the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Oh, and that Medicaid "block grant" idea. I think that's about it as far as specifics go, however.


He also promised to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood in it's entirety (or any organizations "like" Planned Parenthood).
 
2012-06-19 02:28:59 PM

Amos Quito: BMulligan: Amos Quito: So Romney is proves that he is willing and able to ignore Constitutional process and the rule of law - just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... [...]

Are you stupid, or simply ignorant? Perhaps you would do well to learn just a little bit about administrative law. Start with the "take care" clause of the Constitution (Art. II, sec. 3),


Okay, let's go!

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

"...[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."



What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

The DREAM ACT, which does nothing more than a dream, because it does not exist???

The President has no authority to make laws, Congress does. What law has Congress passed that Obama is "taking care" of, BMulligan?

Tell us how what he is doing (and his predecessors before him have done) is Constitutionally sound. won't you BMulligan???

Explain how seizing power by pulling shiat out of your ass is a Presidential Power, okay?


BMulligan: And then go soak your head, because you stink up every thread in which you ever post.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?


/Anxiously awaiting your brilliant response


Do you even know what the executive order does? It reprioritizes deportation cases. Obama ordered the Department of Justice (part of the executive branch) to put prosecutions of those who would qualify for the DREAM act, if it ever passes, at the bottom of their queue, and in the meantime, let them stay free and continue doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

How is any of that unconstitutional?
 
2012-06-19 02:35:55 PM

phyrkrakr: Do you even know what the executive order does? It reprioritizes deportation cases. Obama ordered the Department of Justice (part of the executive branch) to put prosecutions of those who would qualify for the DREAM act, if it ever passes, at the bottom of their queue, and in the meantime, let them stay free and continue doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

How is any of that unconstitutional?



How is any of that unconstitutional?

Over to you.
 
2012-06-19 02:36:50 PM

Amos Quito: phyrkrakr: Do you even know what the executive order does? It reprioritizes deportation cases. Obama ordered the Department of Justice (part of the executive branch) to put prosecutions of those who would qualify for the DREAM act, if it ever passes, at the bottom of their queue, and in the meantime, let them stay free and continue doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

How is any of that unconstitutional?


How is any of that unconstitutional?

Over to you.


Now that's really, really lame.
 
2012-06-19 02:39:13 PM

bobbette: BSABSVR: Who says things like "football with"? Worst. Verbing. Ever.

Romney verbs all the nouns, especially "to douchebag".


"Anyone want to football with me? I'm a big fan of sport, though my wife Ann has to keep me from douchebagging due to my competitive nature."
 
2012-06-19 02:39:21 PM
Amos Quito:
Explain how seizing power by pulling shiat out of your ass is a Presidential Power, okay?


You argument is terrible on so many levels I don't even know where to begin:

1. The Executive enforces the laws. In the event that a law is unclear, they have the responsibility to develop policy around it. pretty much every Federal agency does this because it would be literally impossible for the Congress to write ALL the regulation and day-to-day implemtation of how a law is going to be enforced: see the Federal Register.

2. The Executive has a LOT of leeway in deciding how to enforce/intepret the law, unless the courts directly rule that their interpretaiton runs counter to the law.

3. On a political note: Congress abdicated their authority by not passing a law and basically shutting hte operations of government down. The expanded executive is a direct result of congress being unable to properly do its function.

4. Politicla note 2: Republicans screaming about executive overreach is a lot like the Mouth of Sauron complaining that Gondor is violating OSHA regulaitons by carrying all those pointy swords near the gates of Mordor. FFS George Bush had far more egregious examples of executive overreach and you retards didn't say a peep. If you are going to invest the Presidnecy with that much authority, then you have no leg to stand on when the opposiiton party gets in and starts using that power.
 
2012-06-19 02:40:18 PM
I picture him shorting out like Robert Vaughn's sister in Superman III.
 
2012-06-19 02:42:26 PM

Amos Quito: phyrkrakr: Do you even know what the executive order does? It reprioritizes deportation cases. Obama ordered the Department of Justice (part of the executive branch) to put prosecutions of those who would qualify for the DREAM act, if it ever passes, at the bottom of their queue, and in the meantime, let them stay free and continue doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

How is any of that unconstitutional?


How is any of that unconstitutional?

Over to you.


You appear to not understand what the constitution is and how it is used.
 
2012-06-19 02:47:06 PM
I bet you Republican supporters are super excited about your candidate. Given all the incredibly awesome candidate you guys ran in your primary, I bet it was just too hard to choose. But in the end, you got what you wanted, I think... So how about it? You guys excited to back Romney or what?!
 
2012-06-19 02:49:05 PM
"Prosecutorial discretion" is the authority of an agency or officer to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue each case. A law-enforcement officer who declines to pursue a case against a person has favorably exercised prosecutorial discretion. The authority to exercise discretion in deciding when to prosecute and when not to prosecute based on a priority system has long been recognized as a critical part of U.S. law. The concept of prosecutorial discretion applies in civil, administrative, and criminal contexts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that "an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion." Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).
- What is Prosecutorial Discretion?

Heckler v. Chaney
 
2012-06-19 02:56:08 PM
I've always imagined Fox News' embrace to be much less warm and smoothing and much more sweaty and creepy.
 
2012-06-19 02:57:45 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: There's a reason you don't see Bapp in any of those incredibly photogenic pictures of the Romney family.

The very last photo of him:

[i194.photobucket.com image 576x308]

His shirt was just too close in color to Treg's.


Why are there comic book sound effects captioned over the images?
 
2012-06-19 03:01:05 PM

amiable: Amos Quito:
Explain how seizing power by pulling shiat out of your ass is a Presidential Power, okay?


You argument is terrible on so many levels I don't even know where to begin:

1. The Executive enforces the laws. In the event that a law is unclear, they have the responsibility to develop policy around it.



Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".

amiable: 2. The Executive has a LOT of leeway in deciding how to enforce/intepret the law, unless the courts directly rule that their interpretaiton runs counter to the law.



Yes, the Executive Branch does tend to thumb its nose at both Congress and the Constitution, doesn't it?


amiable: 3. On a political note: Congress abdicated their authority by not passing a law and basically shutting hte operations of government down. The expanded executive is a direct result of congress being unable to properly do its function.



WTF are you talking about? Congress failed to pass the "Dream Act", and that "shut the government down"??? Or are you talking about some other time and place, or some alternate reality in the sixth dimension?


amiable: 4. Politicla note 2: Republicans screaming about executive overreach is a lot like the Mouth of Sauron complaining that Gondor is violating OSHA regulaitons by carrying all those pointy swords near the gates of Mordor. FFS George Bush had far more egregious examples of executive overreach and you retards didn't say a peep. If you are going to invest the Presidnecy with that much authority, then you have no leg to stand on when the opposiiton party gets in and starts using that power.



This is not a partisan issue, lad. BOTH Repubs and Dems have been thumbing their noses at the Constitution and the Rule of Law for decades.


BeesNuts: You appear to not understand what the constitution is and how it is used.



I understand what the Constitution is. The problem is that it is being ignored rather than followed.

Welcome to Amerika.
 
2012-06-19 03:08:21 PM

quizzical: "Prosecutorial discretion" is the authority of an agency or officer to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue each case. A law-enforcement officer who declines to pursue a case against a person has favorably exercised prosecutorial discretion. The authority to exercise discretion in deciding when to prosecute and when not to prosecute based on a priority system has long been recognized as a critical part of U.S. law. The concept of prosecutorial discretion applies in civil, administrative, and criminal contexts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that "an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion." Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).
- What is Prosecutorial Discretion?

Heckler v. Chaney


Quoting unanimous Supreme Court decisions that were written by Chief Justice Rehnquist just proves you are a dirty pinko Commie socialist liberal progressive anti-American mongoloid and ritually sacrifice goats and first-born children at the altar of our Authoritarian Collectivist Usurper-for-life and PresiDebt Taxbongo HUSSEIN ObaMao Zedong al-Chicago (praise Him).
 
2012-06-19 03:09:19 PM

Amos Quito: Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".


It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Do we prosecute a 2 year old in this country if his dad brings him along on a bank heist?
 
2012-06-19 03:10:28 PM

Amos Quito: amiable: Amos Quito:
DERP ...


The law is unclear because it does not specifically state the manner in which it is to be enforced relative to priority. It is up to the Executive to make that decision, which it did. They stated prosecuting and deporting those with minor criminal infractions, non-criminals and children as not a priority.

You also seem to not understand what is or isn't unconsitutional. It's perfectly constitutional for the Executive branch to decide the manner in which to enforce the law.

Congress decided not to pass a law describing in detail how they wanted the law enforced, that is an abdicaiton of the responsibility to the Executive Branch so they can make the decision.

If it's not a partisan issue, please point me to your posts form 2000-2008 expressing your outrage about GW Bush's signing statements.
 
2012-06-19 03:12:45 PM

Amos Quito: BeesNuts: You appear to not understand what the constitution is and how it is used.


I understand what the Constitution is. The problem is that it is being ignored rather than followed.

Welcome to Amerika.


So... given this understanding of yours, why would you ask this silly question:
How is any of that unconstitutional?

I mean, you talk real purdy and all, but you're not SAYING anything.
 
2012-06-19 03:16:42 PM
Romney's hazy position on illegal immigrants:

img535.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-19 03:36:42 PM

wileedog: Amos Quito: Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".


It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Do we prosecute a 2 year old in this country if his dad brings him along on a bank heist?



No, but should we allow him to keep 50% of the money taken because, after all, he's only 2?
 
2012-06-19 03:37:57 PM

Aarontology: weave: He should just go all out and support it in hopes of getting some of the illegal alien vote, because no matter what he does and says, the wingnut base will still vote for him because he's a Christian and not a Muslim.

I dunno if a lot of the wingnut base who think Obama is a Muslim would consider Mormons to be Christians.


Doesn't matter. The only religion that matters to them is Republicanism.
 
2012-06-19 03:38:03 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: There's a reason you don't see Bapp in any of those incredibly photogenic pictures of the Romney family.

The very last photo of him:

[i194.photobucket.com image 576x308]

His shirt was just too close in color to Treg's.


Are those their actual names or nicknames?

/serious question...
 
2012-06-19 03:48:31 PM

amiable: Amos Quito: amiable: Amos Quito:
DERP ...

The law is unclear because it does not specifically state the manner in which it is to be enforced relative to priority.



In that case it would seem clear that it should be enforced without preference or prejudice, no?


amiable: You also seem to not understand what is or isn't unconsitutional. It's perfectly constitutional for the Executive branch to decide the manner in which to enforce the law.



So if thievery is illegal, it would be perfectly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to prosecute female thieves, but not male thieves, for instance?

amiable: Congress decided not to pass a law describing in detail how they wanted the law enforced, that is an abdicaiton of the responsibility to the Executive Branch so they can make the decision.



It would appear that the lack of the detail you pine for does give a clear message: Those who entered or remain in the country illegally are to be deported. If you, the Executive Branch or others feel that is not right, you have recourse: Persuade your representatives to pass or amend the law to address those points that you feel are unjust.

Skirting the law and ignoring due process is a recipe for disaster in a "democracy".


amiable: If it's not a partisan issue, please point me to your posts form 2000-2008 expressing your outrage about GW Bush's signing statements.



Read my first offering in this thread, hack.
 
2012-06-19 03:53:14 PM
My grandparents didn't come here all the way from the Ukraine to share the country with a bunch of immigrants.
 
2012-06-19 03:53:16 PM

BeesNuts: Amos Quito: BeesNuts: You appear to not understand what the constitution is and how it is used.


I understand what the Constitution is. The problem is that it is being ignored rather than followed.

Welcome to Amerika.

So... given this understanding of yours, why would you ask this silly question:
How is any of that unconstitutional?

I mean, you talk real purdy and all, but you're not SAYING anything.



So you're saying that if Congress passes a law, and the Executive Branch does not LIKE the law, they can simply ignore that law, or tap-dance around it and do whatever the fark they please.

And it's all perfectly "Constitutional", right?

Then why bother to have a Legislative Branch? Why not just pick a dictator and let the chips fall?
 
2012-06-19 03:55:52 PM

CPennypacker: My grandparents didn't come here all the way from the Ukraine to share the country with a bunch of immigrants.


lolz.
 
2012-06-19 04:00:29 PM

Amos Quito: wileedog: Amos Quito: Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".


It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Do we prosecute a 2 year old in this country if his dad brings him along on a bank heist?


No, but should we allow him to keep 50% of the money taken because, after all, he's only 2?


At what point should Jose, who has spent his entire conscious life here, leave his whole family and everyone he has ever known to move to some random place in Mexico?

Remember we're talking about people who have achieved higher education goals or have served in the military, not your run of the mill drains on society Conservative caricature. Heck military service alone with honorable discharge should be automatic qualification to stay.

And again, I don't even need to be right on this. The point that we are having this discussion with two relatively valid viewpoints means there is enough ambiguity in this law, vs. say driving over 55 MPH, that it warrants Executive Interpretation.
 
2012-06-19 04:05:36 PM

Amos Quito: BeesNuts: Amos Quito: BeesNuts: You appear to not understand what the constitution is and how it is used.


I understand what the Constitution is. The problem is that it is being ignored rather than followed.

Welcome to Amerika.

So... given this understanding of yours, why would you ask this silly question:
How is any of that unconstitutional?

I mean, you talk real purdy and all, but you're not SAYING anything.


So you're saying that if Congress passes a law, and the Executive Branch does not LIKE the law, they can simply ignore that law, or tap-dance around it and do whatever the fark they please.

And it's all perfectly "Constitutional", right?

Then why bother to have a Legislative Branch? Why not just pick a dictator and let the chips fall?


No. I'm SAYING that asking if something is constitutional is farking stupid. You ask if it's unconstitutional. If the answer is no, you're good to go.

You go ahead and apply your "is it constitutional" derp to some other laws and see how that logic plays out.

I'm SAYING that you don't understand what you're talking about, but you sure seem intent on talking about it nonetheless.
 
2012-06-19 04:08:09 PM

Amos Quito:

In that case it would seem clear that it should be enforced without preference or prejudice, no?


No, it means it is up to the Executive branch how to enforce it, as clearly stated by the Supreme Courts ruling on prosecutorial discretion.

Amos Quito:
So if thievery is illegal, it would be perfectly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to prosecute female thieves, but not male thieves, for instance?


That would be an equal proteciton violation, such as prosecuting someone based on race. It is however a completely bogus analogy: "adults" and "violent criminals" are not a protected class so Obama is well within his rights to re-prioritize prosecution on that basis. You have a very poor understanding of what is "constitutional."


Amos Quito:
It would appear that the lack of the detail you pine for does give a clear message: Those who entered or remain in the country illegally are to be deported. If you, the Executive Branch or others feel that is not right, you have recourse: Persuade your representatives to pass or amend the law to address those points that you feel are unjust.

Skirting the law and ignoring due process is a recipe for disaster in a "democracy".


It's nice that you feel that way, however the President and the Executive branch are the ones who decide how that is going to be enforced. If you understood the constitutional seperation of powers at all and weren't being so delibirately obtuse or just unbelievably dense, you would understand that.


Amos Quito:

Read my first offering in this thread, hack.


Funnily I didn't see any links to where you complained about Bush doing this. Stop trying to deflect, show me the links if you have them. then we cna let the readers decide who is the "hack."
 
2012-06-19 04:23:28 PM

wileedog: Amos Quito: wileedog: Amos Quito: Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".


It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Do we prosecute a 2 year old in this country if his dad brings him along on a bank heist?


No, but should we allow him to keep 50% of the money taken because, after all, he's only 2?


At what point should Jose, who has spent his entire conscious life here, leave his whole family and everyone he has ever known to move to some random place in Mexico?


Good point. Perhaps the law should be changed - but CHANGED being the operative word here - not "ignored", not "skirted" or "weaseled around by citing some irrelevant "clause", but CHANGED via the proper methods as prescribed in the Constitution.

If that's too much trouble, then maybe it isn't worth the effort.

wileedog: Remember we're talking about people who have achieved higher education goals


Now how did these people, who are and always have been in the country ILLEGALLY manage to achieve higher education goals??? Because former presidents and bureaucrats chose to selectively IGNORE and SKIRT the laws that were in place. So the problem we are facing now (kids that have grown up and been EDUCATED here due to scofflaw bureaucracy) are now unable to work and function LEGALLY because they are still ILLEGAL.

The proposed solution under Robamney? More ignoring, skirting, and thumbing noses at the laws.

Brilliant.
 
2012-06-19 04:28:48 PM
Remember, if you continue actively prosecuting and deporting illegal aliens, but deprioritize the young ones, you're still skirting the constitution cuz reading is hard and dey tuk ar jerbs
 
2012-06-19 04:33:54 PM

amiable: Amos Quito:
So if thievery is illegal, it would be perfectly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to prosecute female thieves, but not male thieves, for instance?

That would be an equal proteciton violation, such as prosecuting someone based on race. It is however a completely bogus analogy: "adults" and "violent criminals" are not a protected class so Obama is well within his rights to re-prioritize prosecution on that basis. You have a very poor understanding of what is "constitutional."



Scenario: Filberto and Humberto are both Mexican Nationals that are 23 years of age.

Humberto came into the US illegally as a child of 13. He was educated and raised here.

Filberto, OTOH, came into the US illegally at seventeen years of age. He did not attend school, but went straight to work in the construction industry.

Under the proposed plan (pimped by Obama and winked at by Romney) Filberto would be deported while Humberto would be given a free pass.

How does this not violate the "equal protection" you cited above?
 
2012-06-19 04:39:51 PM

Amos Quito: Good point. Perhaps the law should be changed - but CHANGED being the operative word here - not "ignored", not "skirted" or "weaseled around by citing some irrelevant "clause", but CHANGED via the proper methods as prescribed in the Constitution.

If that's too much trouble, then maybe it isn't worth the effort.


Right, because the original DREAM act wasn't squashed by a stupid parliamentary procedure gone haywire in 2010 by a bunch of GOP senators terrified of the braying mad mob of Tea Partiers. Nobody even remotely tried to change the law, nope.

Amos Quito: Now how did these people, who are and always have been in the country ILLEGALLY manage to achieve higher education goals??? Because former presidents and bureaucrats chose to selectively IGNORE and SKIRT the laws that were in place. So the problem we are facing now (kids that have grown up and been EDUCATED here due to scofflaw bureaucracy) are now unable to work and function LEGALLY because they are still ILLEGAL.


What the hell is your problem with having a hard working, educated contributing member of society here? Who cares if he got here a slightly different way than you, he/she didn't break the law, and punishing them by ripping them away from their life and family is clearly wrong. While working anc contributing here they can still get in the queue for a legitimate path to citizenship with the least amount of family disruption.

And yeah, as noted they are working on changing the law. Even Repubs like Rubio and Jeb Bush see this is a completely screwed up legal position being held hostage by a bunch of bigoted lunatics. So if prioritizing the execution of the law, again a procedure completely ratified by the Supreme Court as cited above, can help keep hard working people and soldiers from being victims of bad legislation, that doesn't exactly create a constitutional crisis.
 
2012-06-19 04:44:56 PM

Amos Quito: wileedog: Amos Quito: wileedog: Amos Quito: Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".


It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Do we prosecute a 2 year old in this country if his dad brings him along on a bank heist?


No, but should we allow him to keep 50% of the money taken because, after all, he's only 2?


At what point should Jose, who has spent his entire conscious life here, leave his whole family and everyone he has ever known to move to some random place in Mexico?

Good point. Perhaps the law should be changed - but CHANGED being the operative word here - not "ignored", not "skirted" or "weaseled around by citing some irrelevant "clause", but CHANGED via the proper methods as prescribed in the Constitution.

If that's too much trouble, then maybe it isn't worth the effort.

wileedog: Remember we're talking about people who have achieved higher education goals

Now how did these people, who are and always have been in the country ILLEGALLY manage to achieve higher education goals??? Because former presidents and bureaucrats chose to selectively IGNORE and SKIRT the laws that were in place. So the problem we are facing now (kids that have grown up and been EDUCATED here due to scofflaw bureaucracy) are now unable to work and function LEGALLY because they are still ILLEGAL.

The proposed solution under Robamney? More ignoring, skirting, and thumbing noses at the laws.

Brilliant.


We get it. You're ignorant and don't like skirts.
 
2012-06-19 04:47:16 PM

Amos Quito: amiable: Amos Quito:
So if thievery is illegal, it would be perfectly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to prosecute female thieves, but not male thieves, for instance?

That would be an equal proteciton violation, such as prosecuting someone based on race. It is however a completely bogus analogy: "adults" and "violent criminals" are not a protected class so Obama is well within his rights to re-prioritize prosecution on that basis. You have a very poor understanding of what is "constitutional."


Scenario: Filberto and Humberto are both Mexican Nationals that are 23 years of age.

Humberto came into the US illegally as a child of 13. He was educated and raised here.

Filberto, OTOH, came into the US illegally at seventeen years of age. He did not attend school, but went straight to work in the construction industry.

Under the proposed plan (pimped by Obama and winked at by Romney) Filberto would be deported while Humberto would be given a free pass.

How does this not violate the "equal protection" you cited above?


Because it doesn't discriminate based on a protected class. Humberto is not given a "free pass", his deportation is simply of a lower priority than Filberto.
 
2012-06-19 04:57:01 PM

Amos Quito: amiable: Amos Quito:
So if thievery is illegal, it would be perfectly Constitutional for the Executive Branch to prosecute female thieves, but not male thieves, for instance?

That would be an equal proteciton violation, such as prosecuting someone based on race. It is however a completely bogus analogy: "adults" and "violent criminals" are not a protected class so Obama is well within his rights to re-prioritize prosecution on that basis. You have a very poor understanding of what is "constitutional."


Scenario: Filberto and Humberto are both Mexican Nationals that are 23 years of age.

Humberto came into the US illegally as a child of 13. He was educated and raised here.

Filberto, OTOH, came into the US illegally at seventeen years of age. He did not attend school, but went straight to work in the construction industry.

Under the proposed plan (pimped by Obama and winked at by Romney) Filberto would be deported while Humberto would be given a free pass.

How does this not violate the "equal protection" you cited above?


It doesn't because enforcement of "equal protection" requires the violation of rights of a protected (suspect) class (such as race, gender, nation of origin). We are getting a bit into the weeds of Con Law here but the level of scrutiny applied by the courts depends on the presence of that suspect class. Laws that unequally effect suspect classes are subject to a much higher degree of judicial scrutiny than non-suspect classes. Since we are not talking about a suspect class all the Administration has to show is that there is a "rational basis" for the disparate treatment. There clearly is a rational basis here (children and non-criminals are far less of a threat than criminals), so the administration is in its rights to treat the groups differently.

That doesn't mean that the decision can be arbitrary (for example they could not choose to deport only red-headed illegals - although they should!), just that they have to show a rational basis for the distinction.

Now if the policy impacted a suspect class, say for example they only deported blacks, then the bar would be strict scrutiny and the assumption would be that the rule is a violation of the equal protection clause. All of this of course is actually moot, because since they are not citizens, it is up in the air as to what equal protections they would be able to assert anyway (in which case my dream of red-head deportation may become a reality!)
 
2012-06-19 05:04:03 PM

Amos Quito: BMulligan: Amos Quito: So Romney is proves that he is willing and able to ignore Constitutional process and the rule of law - just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... [...]

Are you stupid, or simply ignorant? Perhaps you would do well to learn just a little bit about administrative law. Start with the "take care" clause of the Constitution (Art. II, sec. 3),


Okay, let's go!

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

"...[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."



What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

The DREAM ACT, which does nothing more than a dream, because it does not exist???

The President has no authority to make laws, Congress does. What law has Congress passed that Obama is "taking care" of, BMulligan?

Tell us how what he is doing (and his predecessors before him have done) is Constitutionally sound. won't you BMulligan???

Explain how seizing power by pulling shiat out of your ass is a Presidential Power, okay?


BMulligan: And then go soak your head, because you stink up every thread in which you ever post.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?


/Anxiously awaiting your brilliant response


He prioritizes the organization under him.

Funny Mitt Romney says in the first day he is going to give an executive order to cancel Obamacare.

So you think that is unfair too?
 
2012-06-19 05:26:42 PM

Corvus: Amos Quito: BMulligan: Amos Quito: So Romney is proves that he is willing and able to ignore Constitutional process and the rule of law - just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... [...]

Are you stupid, or simply ignorant? Perhaps you would do well to learn just a little bit about administrative law. Start with the "take care" clause of the Constitution (Art. II, sec. 3),


Okay, let's go!

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

"...[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."



What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

The DREAM ACT, which does nothing more than a dream, because it does not exist???

The President has no authority to make laws, Congress does. What law has Congress passed that Obama is "taking care" of, BMulligan?

Tell us how what he is doing (and his predecessors before him have done) is Constitutionally sound. won't you BMulligan???

Explain how seizing power by pulling shiat out of your ass is a Presidential Power, okay?


BMulligan: And then go soak your head, because you stink up every thread in which you ever post.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?


/Anxiously awaiting your brilliant response

He prioritizes the organization under him.

Funny Mitt Romney says in the first day he is going to give an executive order to cancel Obamacare.

So you think that is unfair too?


Forget it, hes just recycling talking points as a form of trolling. I'm seeing the same arguments on several sites.
 
2012-06-19 05:45:25 PM

wileedog: Amos Quito: Explain how immigration law is "unclear" with regard to how illegal aliens who entered the US as youths are differentiated from those who entered as adults. Just because a certain segment of the population doesn't LIKE the law does not make it "unclear".

It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Do we prosecute a 2 year old in this country if his dad brings him along on a bank heist?


Depends....are you in Texas or Arizona
 
2012-06-19 06:05:37 PM
I'd sooner vote for the Burned Man than Mitt Romney. That's one man that could "fire up" the base, as it were.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-06-19 07:38:17 PM
Sounds like the Etch A Sketch is stuck.
 
2012-06-19 08:51:02 PM
It is pretty clear from his posts here that Amos Quito didn't quite finish high school, which is likely why he (a) is so concerned about the competition from other low skill workers, and (b) seems only able to parrot back AM radio talking points.
 
2012-06-19 08:56:23 PM
"You know, we will see kind of what the calendar looks like at that point and I am not going to tell which items will come first, second, or third," Romney said,

Did he go to the Palin school of language?
 
2012-06-19 09:26:20 PM

Corvus: /Anxiously awaiting your brilliant response

He prioritizes the organization under him.

Funny Mitt Romney says in the first day he is going to give an executive order to cancel Obamacare.

So you think that is unfair too?



It has nothing to do with "fair" or "unfair". Either we adhere to the checks and balances and limitations prescribed in the Constitution or we don't.

LOL! You're here applauding Obama as he side-steps the rule of law because you happen to like what he is trying to accomplish at the moment - but at the same time you're bemoaning the possibility that his successor might unravel some of his pretty (if unconstitutional) macrame using the same back-door methods.

This shiat has been going on increasingly since the late 1930's, and we allow each successive administration, Republican or Democrat, to circumvent the Constitutional constraints, and dodge the legitimate processes. And each administration brings us closer to a centralized authoritarian regime that dictates virtually every aspect of your life.

Now you might think that's not such a bad idea - as long as you happen to agree with everything the Authoritarians are doing, but what happens when there's shift change, or the political winds blow from the opposite direction?

The idiots that populate the Politics tab see everything as black or white, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, and that's what makes you so farking easy to manipulate.

lol!
 
2012-06-19 09:33:34 PM

Amos Quito: What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?


Pick through USC Title VIII, with particular attention to sections 1227, 1229, and 1229a. Don't forget to consult with the relevant CFR sections, especially sections 208.1 et seq. and sections 209.1 et seq.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?

No, you did not. Tell me - have you ever practiced administrative law? Because I have to tell you, you suck at it.
 
2012-06-19 09:50:51 PM

BMulligan: Amos Quito: What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

Pick through USC Title VIII, with particular attention to sections 1227, 1229, and 1229a. Don't forget to consult with the relevant CFR sections, especially sections 208.1 et seq. and sections 209.1 et seq.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?

No, you did not. Tell me - have you ever practiced administrative law? Because I have to tell you, you suck at it.



I chuckle every time I see some Farker try to play that hand. If you have a point, make it, because "DUR HURRR. U R STOOPID" is not an acceptable retort.

Again, what LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here, and why is skirting the Constitutionally prescribed checks, balances and procedures an acceptable method for "taking care" in this or in ANY case?
 
2012-06-19 09:57:18 PM

Amos Quito: BMulligan: Amos Quito: What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

Pick through USC Title VIII, with particular attention to sections 1227, 1229, and 1229a. Don't forget to consult with the relevant CFR sections, especially sections 208.1 et seq. and sections 209.1 et seq.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?

No, you did not. Tell me - have you ever practiced administrative law? Because I have to tell you, you suck at it.


I chuckle every time I see some Farker try to play that hand. If you have a point, make it, because "DUR HURRR. U R STOOPID" is not an acceptable retort.

Again, what LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here, and why is skirting the Constitutionally prescribed checks, balances and procedures an acceptable method for "taking care" in this or in ANY case?


You're a farking idiot. You don't have the slightest idea how the delegation doctrine works, you have no idea how the Administrative Procedures Act works, you have no idea how the executive branch functions, and you're openly proud of your ignorance with no interest in learning anything from people with actual professional experience in the subject. I've wasted more than enough time on you already.
 
2012-06-19 10:38:55 PM

BMulligan: Amos Quito: BMulligan: Amos Quito: What LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here?

Pick through USC Title VIII, with particular attention to sections 1227, 1229, and 1229a. Don't forget to consult with the relevant CFR sections, especially sections 208.1 et seq. and sections 209.1 et seq.

Well, I just shiat all over your argument, didn't I?

No, you did not. Tell me - have you ever practiced administrative law? Because I have to tell you, you suck at it.


I chuckle every time I see some Farker try to play that hand. If you have a point, make it, because "DUR HURRR. U R STOOPID" is not an acceptable retort.

Again, what LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here, and why is skirting the Constitutionally prescribed checks, balances and procedures an acceptable method for "taking care" in this or in ANY case?

You're a farking idiot. You don't have the slightest idea how the delegation doctrine works, you have no idea how the Administrative Procedures Act works, you have no idea how the executive branch functions, and you're openly proud of your ignorance with no interest in learning anything from people with actual professional experience in the subject. I've wasted more than enough time on you already.



LOL! But you make no attempt to articulate any of the wisdom you claim to possess. Again, you have no point to make other than "DUR HURRR. U R STOOPID".

If you know what you're talking about, why not dazzle us with your intellectual prowess?

Rock on, BMulligan.
 
2012-06-20 01:36:30 AM

Amos Quito: Again, what LAW is Obama "taking care" to see that it is being "faithfully executed" here, and why is skirting the Constitutionally prescribed checks, balances and procedures an acceptable method for "taking care" in this or in ANY case?


You seem hell bent on ignoring everything people have tried to explain to you, but I'll try it once more:

Obama is constitutionally and faithfully executing our current immigration laws, as written.

1) The executive branch has the duty to enforce the law.
2) Because there are only a finite number of resources available, it has been found constitutional for law enforcement agencies to set priorities for how they will enforce the law. For example, the police are allowed to prioritize arresting a man who is threatening others with a knife over arresting a jaywalker. That doesn't mean what the jaywalker did was legal, it just means that, at the moment, the police have better things to do.
3) As head of the executive branch, Obama has the ability to set enforcement priorities for agencies under his authority.

Per his authority to set priorities, Obama chose to temporarily stay deportation for a specific subset of illegal immigrants. He did not make them legal citizens. He did not say they could never be deported. He just moved them to the end of the deportation line for a bit. In setting these priorities, he is acting in accordance with Constitutional checks and balances on the power of the legislative and the executive branches of our government.

You accuse Obama of "skirting" Congress here. This action only skirts Congress to the extent that he does not need Congress' permission to set enforcement priorities for agency's under his authority. Congress, in turn, has the authority to pass more comprehensive immigration reform with less room for the administrative maneuvering that Obama exercised here.

The Constitution is the highest authority in the land, but it is not a statute that exists in isolation. There are a very large number of other laws and legal holdings that give it effect. Just because you don't know all the rules, it doesn't make government action that you personally disagree with unconstitutional.

Now please, I think you've bagged your limit of billy goats in this thread. Go back under your bridge.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report