Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[Phatscotty]

So your stance here is that Obama isn't actually doing anything? Then why are you whining about it?

Where did I whine about it? I don't know what you are talking about, and in fact, I specifically said I am not worried about it.

The insanity continues...

[huamulan]

You seem pretty concerned about it.

just because there are dictators who are worse does not mean we should turn a blind eye when our president bypasses Congress

[Woodruff]

GreekDog asked you to stop.

Unless I'm mistaken, he was speaking to the both of us. Though I must admit I'm not surprised at all to hear you say this.

I wasn't talking to you

I really don't give a rat's ass if you're talking to me. You're posting on a public forum, and I have the ability to respond to those posts.

and for the 8th time you are on my foed list.

Then what are you complaining about? If I'm foed by you, why are you reading my posts? If you believe I am trolling you, WHY ARE YOU FORCING ME TO TROLL YOU, PHATSCOTTY?

For the love of God, stop getting into the middle of me and someone elses conversation and trying to ruin threads and engage in flaming.

I know you're not used to having to deal with ideas that run counter to your own, but presenting such ideas is not the same as trying to ruin threads (which I certainly am not doing) nor is it engaging in flaming (which I certainly am not doing).

Mind your own damn business!!!!
Don't freaking talk to me.

Keep me foed and you won't have to worry about the bad man who has the evil, liberal ideas that make people think.

[john9blue]

If they could, they would. For now, they are content in justifying Obama's illegal action, based on other crappy people who have nothing to do with the issue. Always remarkable, but at least they are consistent.

i'm with woody on this one. i don't think the people in this thread are attempting to justify obama's actions. if they were, then they would have actually responded to nightstrike's post.

what they did instead was even worse: they realized that obama was clearly wrong, but didn't want to admit that nightstrike was correct, so they attacked him directly without even addressing the issue. it's childish and stupid and quite common, even in real-life arguments.

[john9blue]

There's no need to boil my response down to the extent that it fits inside a nice little 'liberal vs. conservative' box. You may like using over-simplification as a way of turning political conversation into something you're capable of engaging with but you will miss the point a lot of the time.

As Woodruff said, I was just expressing my lack of shock that a country's leader has proven himself to be something other than as pure as Muhammad (ooooh I said Muhammad - typical liberal frame of reference!).

i will boil your response down into a "liberal box", because only someone who was predisposed towards liberalism and biased in favor of obama would make an attempt to bypass his clear wrongdoing and attack the poster directly. any intellectually honest or unbiased person would admit in a heartbeat that obama got caught red-handed.

if i misinterpreted your post, then i apologize, but it took the same tone as the ones before it and seemed to be an attempt to justify obama's actions.

[Haggis_McMutton]

heh, I've missed john's outbursts.

also, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this whole politics business is basically one big tv show played for the benefit of those who can be bothered to follow it.

I suppose the nice thing about it is that people can watch the show and fool themselves into thinking they actually are affecting the outcome of the show while not incurring the social costs linked to having the same attitude towards, say, Lost or The Wire.

Saying you spent the whole night researching how Sawyer might get off the island is probably viewed as less valuable than spending the night researching how candidate X might win some election, though the two are virtually indistinguishable.

Bread and circuses, it's still true.

[pmchugh]

heh, I've missed john's outbursts.

also, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this whole politics business is basically one big tv show played for the benefit of those who can be bothered to follow it.

I suppose the nice thing about it is that people can watch the show and fool themselves into thinking they actually are affecting the outcome of the show while not incurring the social costs linked to having the same attitude towards, say, Lost or The Wire.

Saying you spent the whole night researching how Sawyer might get off the island is probably viewed as less valuable than spending the night researching how candidate X might win some election, though the two are virtually indistinguishable.

Bread and circuses, it's still true.

+ a billion.

I think that is a further point that john misses, he assumes that the people who posted actually want to stick up for Obama. I can't speak for the others but I certainly don't.

[john9blue]

+ a billion.

I think that is a further point that john misses, he assumes that the people who posted actually want to stick up for Obama. I can't speak for the others but I certainly don't.

i'm with woody on this one. i don't think the people in this thread are attempting to justify obama's actions. if they were, then they would have actually responded to nightstrike's post.

read my posts dude! =/

[Woodruff]

If they could, they would. For now, they are content in justifying Obama's illegal action, based on other crappy people who have nothing to do with the issue. Always remarkable, but at least they are consistent.

i'm with woody on this one. i don't think the people in this thread are attempting to justify obama's actions. if they were, then they would have actually responded to nightstrike's post.

what they did instead was even worse: they realized that obama was clearly wrong, but didn't want to admit that nightstrike was correct, so they attacked him directly without even addressing the issue. it's childish and stupid and quite common, even in real-life arguments.

Attacked him directly? Can you not read at all? Is this some sort of a weird trolling expedition?

[Woodruff]

There's no need to boil my response down to the extent that it fits inside a nice little 'liberal vs. conservative' box. You may like using over-simplification as a way of turning political conversation into something you're capable of engaging with but you will miss the point a lot of the time.

As Woodruff said, I was just expressing my lack of shock that a country's leader has proven himself to be something other than as pure as Muhammad (ooooh I said Muhammad - typical liberal frame of reference!).

i will boil your response down into a "liberal box", because only someone who was predisposed towards liberalism and biased in favor of obama would make an attempt to bypass his clear wrongdoing and attack the poster directly.

He didn't attack Night Strike in his post in question. Good Lord.

any intellectually honest or unbiased person would admit in a heartbeat that obama got caught red-handed.

Pretty much everyone in this thread has acknowledged exactly that, John. When will you start being intellectually honest and unbiased?

if i misinterpreted your post, then i apologize, but it took the same tone as the ones before it and seemed to be an attempt to justify obama's actions.

It was nothing of the sort.

[Woodruff]

heh, I've missed john's outbursts.

also, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this whole politics business is basically one big tv show played for the benefit of those who can be bothered to follow it.

I suppose the nice thing about it is that people can watch the show and fool themselves into thinking they actually are affecting the outcome of the show while not incurring the social costs linked to having the same attitude towards, say, Lost or The Wire.

Saying you spent the whole night researching how Sawyer might get off the island is probably viewed as less valuable than spending the night researching how candidate X might win some election, though the two are virtually indistinguishable.

Bread and circuses, it's still true.

STOP IT YOU LIBERAL! WHY MUST YOU ATTACK THE ORIGINAL POSTER LIKE THIS? SOCIALISM!!!!

[Woodruff]

+ a billion.

I think that is a further point that john misses, he assumes that the people who posted actually want to stick up for Obama. I can't speak for the others but I certainly don't.

i'm with woody on this one. i don't think the people in this thread are attempting to justify obama's actions. if they were, then they would have actually responded to nightstrike's post.

read my posts dude! =/

Do they start making sense?

[huamulan]

I think the politicians care more than the people. I've met people who are really involved with political parties (running for office, campaigning and attending rallies) and each and every one of them has been brainwashed to the maximum. Their side of the conversation is almost entirely made up of quotes from their party's manifesto.

Politics with a capital 'P' is total shit.

john: my response would have been the same if the original post was about a Republican president.

[Phatscotty]

"Bush did it" = justification.
"Look at the presidents of the 20th and 21st century, they all fit into this mold" = minimization and maybe even approval
"Look at N' Korea etc..." = minimization/comparison

2 wrongs do not make a right. Obama actions on this issue are dictator-like. Obama admitted as much in the past.

This is the exact reason why I gave a lot of Republicans shit when they supported Bush granting himself more emergency powers. I always reminded them that the next president will have the same powers and probably more, but they didn't care at the time...

[huamulan]

But one wrong so infinitesimally small that it barely constitutes a 'wrong' makes an issue not worth caring about.

[pmchugh]

+ a billion.

I think that is a further point that john misses, he assumes that the people who posted actually want to stick up for Obama. I can't speak for the others but I certainly don't.

i'm with woody on this one. i don't think the people in this thread are attempting to justify obama's actions. if they were, then they would have actually responded to nightstrike's post.

read my posts dude! =/

There is a difference between not wanting to do something and not attempting to do something.

what they did instead was even worse: they realized that obama was clearly wrong, but didn't want to admit that nightstrike was correct, so they attacked him directly without even addressing the issue. it's childish and stupid and quite common, even in real-life arguments.

Here is the rest of the post you conveniently left out, which suggests that we want to stick up for Obama and that we are "arguing" over Obama. I would say at best you can accuse me of trolling but we are clearly not "close-minded liberals" out to smear NS because we can't argue with his points, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Unless I am mistaken.

[Phatscotty]

But one wrong so infinitesimally small that it barely constitutes a 'wrong' makes an issue not worth caring about.

that's your opinion. I would argue that anytime a president bypasses Congress, it's a big deal. No matter what the issue is or the size of it. A dictator is a dictator.

[Night Strike]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

[Phatscotty]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

+ a trillion

[Night Strike]

But one wrong so infinitesimally small that it barely constitutes a 'wrong' makes an issue not worth caring about.

that's your opinion. I would argue that anytime a president bypasses Congress, it's a big deal. No matter what the issue is or the size of it. A dictator is a dictator.

Obama has said in the past that our country would be much better and get more things "done" (read: bigger governmental programs) if we didn't have Congress and he could just enact his agenda without them. He would prefer if this country was run by the President and not by Congress, and he is actively working to make that happen. Even though he knows it's unconstitutional. We do not have the rule of law with this president in office because he picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. Heck, he can't even always follow the laws he signs (and wanted) because he granted waivers from Obamacare as political favors. And when we do not have the rule of law, we have the rule of a dictator (or lawlessness.....either is horrible).

[huamulan]

The American Revolution was illegal yet it is celebrated with a national holiday in the USA.

Maybe one day there will be an 'Obama Day' on which people launch fireworks in memory of his monumental forward-thinking when it came to immigration policy and the daring he displayed by standing up to the old-fashioned institutions that attempted to suppress the voice of progress.

A real Martin Luther King, Gandhi or Nelson Mandela of 2012.

[Woodruff]

This is the exact reason why I gave a lot of Republicans shit when they supported Bush granting himself more emergency powers.

You talk about this a lot, but you seem to be the only person that remembers you doing that. I certainly haven't been able to find anything to that effect.

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country.

Is that why you were so frequently calling Bush a dictator? Because I distinctly don't remember you doing that.

Obama has said in the past that our country would be much better and get more things "done" (read: bigger governmental programs) if we didn't have Congress and he could just enact his agenda without them. He would prefer if this country was run by the President and not by Congress, and he is actively working to make that happen. Even though he knows it's unconstitutional. We do not have the rule of law with this president in office because he picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. Heck, he can't even always follow the laws he signs (and wanted) because he granted waivers from Obamacare as political favors. And when we do not have the rule of law, we have the rule of a dictator (or lawlessness.....either is horrible).

Is that why you were so frequently calling Bush a dictator? Because I distinctly don't remember you doing that.

[Woodruff]

The American Revolution was illegal yet it is celebrated with a national holiday in the USA.

That was an action that was illegally taken against another nation, not against their own...that is a different situation.

Maybe one day there will be an 'Obama Day' on which people launch fireworks in memory of his monumental forward-thinking when it came to immigration policy and the daring he displayed by standing up to the old-fashioned institutions that attempted to suppress the voice of progress.
A real Martin Luther King, Gandhi or Nelson Mandela of 2012.

SOCIALISM!!!!

[Night Strike]

Is that why you were so frequently calling Bush a dictator? Because I distinctly don't remember you doing that.

So that's your justification for Obama's actions?

[Woodruff]

Is that why you were so frequently calling Bush a dictator? Because I distinctly don't remember you doing that.

So that's your justification for Obama's actions?

Do you not read very well, or did you somehow overlook my statement regarding Obama's actions? I am in agreement with thegreekdog, and stated so quite early in this thread (my first post, I believe...maybe second).

I know it's just a desperate distractionary measure on your part, but at least try to make your distractions such that they're actual distractions rather than supporting my point.