phlegmmo: Does Novemeber come after Smarch?

Ha!

And after November, the Republicans will be begging states not to fully implement ACA until *shakes magic 8 ball*. . . .

Is it possible that some folks agree with Obama's immigration policy while disagreeing with the way he implemented (by royal fiat) and also don't 100% hate ACA but do have some issues with the details?

In other words are there any moderates in the US? Does everyone have to choose to suck either Obama's or Romney's dick?

Happy Hours: Is it possible that some folks agree with Obama's immigration policy while disagreeing with the way he implemented (by royal fiat) and also don't 100% hate ACA but do have some issues with the details?

In other words are there any moderates in the US? Does everyone have to choose to suck either Obama's or Romney's dick?

Moderates="people who think like me". Always. Most people self-identify as moderate. The Thomas Friedman pundit fallacy is entirely based on this concept.

It's also possible to not be incredibly worried about how Obama chose to enforce immigration without sucking his dick.

BSABSVR: Happy Hours: Is it possible that some folks agree with Obama's immigration policy while disagreeing with the way he implemented (by royal fiat) and also don't 100% hate ACA but do have some issues with the details?

In other words are there any moderates in the US? Does everyone have to choose to suck either Obama's or Romney's dick?

Moderates="people who think like me". Always. Most people self-identify as moderate. The Thomas Friedman pundit fallacy is entirely based on this concept.

Well, that's a fair point. Elect me president because I'm a reasonable person (according to me.)

It's also possible to not be incredibly worried about how Obama chose to enforce immigration without sucking his dick.

I'm not really sure. I actually think what Obama said about NOT enforcing immigration law for a narrow segment of illegal immigrants (those whose parents brought them here under 16, don't have any criminal record, have lived here more than 5 years, etc...) was a pretty good idea. IMO it's fair and reasonable, BUT he just decided to do it all on his own. It's a very bad precedent IMO. Granted, he's not the first President who thought he could act like a dictator, but the past is past. Some folks like to trot out the picture of Reagan signing the amnesty bill for illegal immigrants over 25 years ago - BUT he was signing a bill that Congress enacted and not just saying "Hey. I'm President - It's sort of like KING - what I say goes!"

mrshowrules: Courtesy of Jackpot777

Link

LOL

James!: The AZ ruling from SCOTUS this week pointed out that it is up to the Executive branch to decide if someone needs to be removed from the country.

Uh, no - that's not what SCOTUS said at all. They did say it's not up to the states. They didn't say the Executive Branch can just make shiat up as they go along.

Happy Hours: BSABSVR: Happy Hours: Is it possible that some folks agree with Obama's immigration policy while disagreeing with the way he implemented (by royal fiat) and also don't 100% hate ACA but do have some issues with the details?

In other words are there any moderates in the US? Does everyone have to choose to suck either Obama's or Romney's dick?

Moderates="people who think like me". Always. Most people self-identify as moderate. The Thomas Friedman pundit fallacy is entirely based on this concept.

Well, that's a fair point. Elect me president because I'm a reasonable person (according to me.)

It's also possible to not be incredibly worried about how Obama chose to enforce immigration without sucking his dick.

I'm not really sure. I actually think what Obama said about NOT enforcing immigration law for a narrow segment of illegal immigrants (those whose parents brought them here under 16, don't have any criminal record, have lived here more than 5 years, etc...) was a pretty good idea. IMO it's fair and reasonable, BUT he just decided to do it all on his own. It's a very bad precedent IMO. Granted, he's not the first President who thought he could act like a dictator, but the past is past. Some folks like to trot out the picture of Reagan signing the amnesty bill for illegal immigrants over 25 years ago - BUT he was signing a bill that Congress enacted and not just saying "Hey. I'm President - It's sort of like KING - what I say goes!"

It's not even amnesty though. The Reagan Justice Dept stepped up porn prosecutions. Bush II did the same.

It's not like we were successfully deporting every illegal immigrant and Obama said to stop. He drew an arbitrary line. Given that enforcement has to stop somewhere, that line has always existed anyway. He just clarified it and made it semi official.

He's doing the same thing with MMJ shops which is causing less of a furor.

BSABSVR: Happy Hours: BSABSVR: Happy Hours: Is it possible that some folks agree with Obama's immigration policy while disagreeing with the way he implemented (by royal fiat) and also don't 100% hate ACA but do have some issues with the details?

In other words are there any moderates in the US? Does everyone have to choose to suck either Obama's or Romney's dick?

Moderates="people who think like me". Always. Most people self-identify as moderate. The Thomas Friedman pundit fallacy is entirely based on this concept.

Well, that's a fair point. Elect me president because I'm a reasonable person (according to me.)

It's also possible to not be incredibly worried about how Obama chose to enforce immigration without sucking his dick.

I'm not really sure. I actually think what Obama said about NOT enforcing immigration law for a narrow segment of illegal immigrants (those whose parents brought them here under 16, don't have any criminal record, have lived here more than 5 years, etc...) was a pretty good idea. IMO it's fair and reasonable, BUT he just decided to do it all on his own. It's a very bad precedent IMO. Granted, he's not the first President who thought he could act like a dictator, but the past is past. Some folks like to trot out the picture of Reagan signing the amnesty bill for illegal immigrants over 25 years ago - BUT he was signing a bill that Congress enacted and not just saying "Hey. I'm President - It's sort of like KING - what I say goes!"

It's not even amnesty though. The Reagan Justice Dept stepped up porn prosecutions. Bush II did the same.

What do porn prosecutions under Reagan have to do with our current president?

It's not like we were successfully deporting every illegal immigrant and Obama said to stop. He drew an arbitrary line.

Exactly - he just unilaterally decided this part of the law doesn't get enforced. While I don't really have a problem with where he drew that line, it's a clear violation of the balance of powers.

Given that enforcement has to stop somewhere, that line has always existed anyway. He just clarified it and made it semi official.

He's doing the same thing with MMJ shops which is causing less of a furor.

lolwut?

Oh, and BTW, he didn't exactly just say he's okay with illegal immigrants who are following state laws nor did he make as big a deal about saying he wouldn't bust medical marijuana dispensaries as he did about granting amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who met certain qualifications.

Happy Hours: What do porn prosecutions under Reagan have to do with our current president?

The current president is not the first president to either ramp up and or ramp down prosecution of specific laws, claiming that he is is disingenuous. at best.

Happy Hours: lolwut?

A google search? really? How about a fact. If Obama chose to, they could roll through CO and bust every dispensary in sight. They are busting more in CA, but They are not attempting to put the industry out of business. They are in fact being selective, just like they are with the deportation.

/A farking google search.
//Teach me to assume you are arguing honestly

BSABSVR: Happy Hours: What do porn prosecutions under Reagan have to do with our current president?

The current president is not the first president to either ramp up and or ramp down prosecution of specific laws, claiming that he is is disingenuous. at best.

Happy Hours: lolwut?

A google search? really? How about a fact. If Obama chose to, they could roll through CO and bust every dispensary in sight. They are busting more in CA, but They are not attempting to put the industry out of business. They are in fact being selective, just like they are with the deportation.

/A farking google search.
//Teach me to assume you are arguing honestly

Someone tried to do that to me on Reddit the other day. This was my response.

180,000 hits! It must be true.

EnviroDude: vygramul: Except the EO did not implement DREAM, just the parts the president can do, which is not much. Just like he said a couple of years ago.

Granting amnesty to a million people is more than "not much".

Good thing it didn't do that, then, right?

GOP wants to make sure they can buy shiny new guns and airplanes, even if you have to suffer. Nothing new there.

St_Francis_P: Lorelle: These assholes are fighting awfully hard to keep millions of Americans from getting affordable health care.

Once again, the GOP has shown that it truly doesn't give a damn about people.

Not true; they deeply care about themselves.

I think at this point whether they qualify as people is becoming debatable.

The ACA is "broken" we need to pass "comprehensive" healthcare reform defined in our terms, therefore we don't have to implement it.

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: vygramul: Except the EO did not implement DREAM, just the parts the president can do, which is not much. Just like he said a couple of years ago.

Granting amnesty to a million people is more than "not much".

Good thing it didn't do that, then, right?

It doesn't surprise me the party that considers every issue black and white can't wrap their head around a concept like prosecutorial discretion.

Sock Ruh Tease: GOP wants to make sure they can buy shiny new guns and airplanes, even if you have to suffer. Nothing new there.

Now now, you forgot that only the middle and lower classes should pay for those things. Job Creators can't afford to contribute to defense.

Makh: St_Francis_P: Lots of people; problem is, if you wait for any sort of perfection you'll get nothing. The Republicans haven't exactly been falling all over themselves to improve America.

They want to improve America, but they don't want the Democrats to benefit. Nor do they want any other scumbag who didn't vote for them to benefit either.

/It's tough to improve a country without helping the people don't benefit you in any way.

In what way have they demonstrated a want to improve America. I have been unable to find a single piece of legislation or even a proposal written by Republicans in the last 3 and a half years or so that was even remotely designed to improve America. So... I'm going to need some citation on that claim before I'm going to be able to consider your, "they want to improve America", as anything other than laughable.

I'm really not trying to be glib with you or anything... I'm just saying that I have seen no evidence to support that part of what you said.

Remember folks - every single illegal immigrant in the entire country was already caught, investigated, processed for deportation, and sitting on the ICE buses. But suddenly Obama signed that exec order, and instantly they were given honorary degrees and free health plans, and you were all fired so they could have your white-collar jobs.

That unAmerican tyrant...