Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[Phatscotty]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

[chang50]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

To see hypocrisy in oneself requires self examination,the Socratic method,the old Greek would be sad to see it so lacking 2400 years on.

[Phatscotty]

If my best friend in the world needs help, he can stay here any time he wants and for as long as he wants. But the moment he starts breaking my rules and trying to make his own, he's gone.

[Phatscotty]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The American Revolution was British citizens wishing to become citizens of a new nation. Under your analogy, it's Mexican (and many other countries) citizens wishing to take over someone else's country. Big difference there.

What about the rights of the British citizens who remained loyal to the crown?

They went and lived in the country where the Crown ruled?

The vast majority of Loyalists from the American Revolution stayed, historians think about 10% emigrated I think.


--Andy

Thanks for that. As Andy confirms, 90% of "loyalists" stayed in enemy territory after the war.

Looks like even the Loyalists knew where law was respected and where it wasn't.

[chang50]

If my best friend in the world needs help, he can stay here any time he wants and for as long as he wants. But the moment he starts breaking my rules and trying to make his own, he's gone.

Can't you see that the American revolutionaries broke the rules,rightly in my opinion,or do you think there are some occasions when its your duty to break the rules?

[Phatscotty]

If my best friend in the world needs help, he can stay here any time he wants and for as long as he wants. But the moment he starts breaking my rules and trying to make his own, he's gone.

Can't you see that the American revolutionaries broke the rules,rightly in my opinion,or do you think there are some occasions when its your duty to break the rules?

How about a specific example. I know what you're getting at, but I want to know what you're talking about.

[chang50]

If my best friend in the world needs help, he can stay here any time he wants and for as long as he wants. But the moment he starts breaking my rules and trying to make his own, he's gone.

Can't you see that the American revolutionaries broke the rules,rightly in my opinion,or do you think there are some occasions when its your duty to break the rules?

How about a specific example. I know what you're getting at, but I want to know what you're talking about.

Just taking up arms against the British rule,however tyrannical,was breaking the law as determined by the British who were the Imperial power at the time.I'm saying there have been many times in history when people have broke the tyrannical law of the time and been justified in so doing.Civil disobedience has a long and honourable record.When you said if you live in somebody's house you follow their rules,weren't the colonists living in a house belonging to the Brits?

[Phatscotty]

If my best friend in the world needs help, he can stay here any time he wants and for as long as he wants. But the moment he starts breaking my rules and trying to make his own, he's gone.

Can't you see that the American revolutionaries broke the rules,rightly in my opinion,or do you think there are some occasions when its your duty to break the rules?

How about a specific example. I know what you're getting at, but I want to know what you're talking about.

Just taking up arms against the British rule,however tyrannical,was breaking the law as determined by the British who were the Imperial power at the time.I'm saying there have been many times in history when people have broke the tyrannical law of the time and been justified in so doing.Civil disobedience has a long and honourable record.When you said if you live in somebody's house you follow their rules,weren't the colonists living in a house belonging to the Brits?

I agree with you about civil disobedience. But I think you are stretching what is meant by a "house". The closest I can meet you on that is Britain being the house, and the colonies being the plantation...with an ocean between them.

To say the original point yet another way, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Just a related video to the thread topic

[chang50]

If my best friend in the world needs help, he can stay here any time he wants and for as long as he wants. But the moment he starts breaking my rules and trying to make his own, he's gone.

Can't you see that the American revolutionaries broke the rules,rightly in my opinion,or do you think there are some occasions when its your duty to break the rules?

How about a specific example. I know what you're getting at, but I want to know what you're talking about.

Just taking up arms against the British rule,however tyrannical,was breaking the law as determined by the British who were the Imperial power at the time.I'm saying there have been many times in history when people have broke the tyrannical law of the time and been justified in so doing.Civil disobedience has a long and honourable record.When you said if you live in somebody's house you follow their rules,weren't the colonists living in a house belonging to the Brits?

I agree with you about civil disobedience. But I think you are stretching what is meant by a "house". The closest I can meet you on that is Britain being the house, and the colonies being the plantation...with an ocean between them.

To be fair the house analogy was yours originally and I merely extended it : )

[john9blue]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

sorry to ruin your "gotcha" moment, but there's a difference between disobeying laws and campaigning to change the laws.

Phatscotty is explicitly saying that those who are dependent on those who make the rules must accept what they get from those who make the rules. Here, let me actually quote it for you:
"If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means."

But it's nice of you to jump to his defense again, you moderate you!

well first of all, it's a bit of a stretch to say that scotty is "dependent on the government"

secondly, scotty isn't a serial liar and slanderer like you are. he also doesn't stalk people that he considers himself superior to, and constantly get his rocks off by hurling insults at them.

[Woodruff]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

sorry to ruin your "gotcha" moment, but there's a difference between disobeying laws and campaigning to change the laws.

Phatscotty is explicitly saying that those who are dependent on those who make the rules must accept what they get from those who make the rules. Here, let me actually quote it for you:
"If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means."

But it's nice of you to jump to his defense again, you moderate you!

well first of all, it's a bit of a stretch to say that scotty is "dependent on the government"

It is? How so? Where would Phatscotty be, in your view, if there was no United States government? It seems to be a stretch to say he would be in a strong position without a government.

secondly, scotty isn't a serial liar and slanderer like you are.

He isn't? Thank you, Mr. Moderate.

he also doesn't stalk people that he considers himself superior to, and constantly get his rocks off by hurling insults at them.

I don't stalk Phatscotty. I simply respond to posts that I find inaccurate. Those seem to come in high volume from him. But thank you, Mr. Moderate (are you stalking me?).

[john9blue]

I don't stalk Phatscotty. I simply respond to posts that I find inaccurate. Those seem to come in high volume from him. But thank you, Mr. Moderate (are you stalking me?).

same here, but apparently that makes me a diehard republican

[Phatscotty]

Woody, if you got something to ask me, just ask. I'm pretty sure I don't need a translator following me around, rehashing everything I say.

[Phatscotty]

It‘s very rare that you see President Obama admit wrongdoing after he’s done something. Unfortunately, it’s much more common for him to say something is a bad idea and then do it. Listing the number of instances would take too long, but it‘s safe to say it’s a common trend.

And now there’s just one more example. In the following clip, taken from a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admits that it’s beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because (surprise, surprise) there are laws on the books that he’d be breaking by doing that. In other words, the President acknowledges that to do what he did today would be a rank violation of the separation of powers. Watch below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-video-obama-admits-he-cant-do-what-he-did-today/

Why doesn't Congress stand up for the Constitution and the proper role of the government? This president is unilaterally removing Congress from their role of making laws simply because their laws get in his way. We have a dictator, not a president.

It's time for The People to Stand, and use the Constitution for what it was intended...

[Woodruff]

I don't stalk Phatscotty. I simply respond to posts that I find inaccurate. Those seem to come in high volume from him. But thank you, Mr. Moderate (are you stalking me?).

same here, but apparently that makes me a diehard republican

That has nothing to do with anything of the sort, Mr. Moderate.

[john9blue]

I don't stalk Phatscotty. I simply respond to posts that I find inaccurate. Those seem to come in high volume from him. But thank you, Mr. Moderate (are you stalking me?).

same here, but apparently that makes me a diehard republican

That has nothing to do with anything of the sort, Mr. Moderate.

wait, so what do you think i am then, if not a republican? an anarchist? where do my political views lie, in your opinion?

[Phatscotty]

I don't stalk Phatscotty. I simply respond to posts that I find inaccurate. Those seem to come in high volume from him. But thank you, Mr. Moderate (are you stalking me?).

same here, but apparently that makes me a diehard republican

That has nothing to do with anything of the sort, Mr. Moderate.

wait, so what do you think i am then, if not a republican? an anarchist? where do my political views lie, in your opinion?

U R obviously an Enviro-Nazi

[Woodruff]

I don't stalk Phatscotty. I simply respond to posts that I find inaccurate. Those seem to come in high volume from him. But thank you, Mr. Moderate (are you stalking me?).

same here, but apparently that makes me a diehard republican

That has nothing to do with anything of the sort, Mr. Moderate.

wait, so what do you think i am then, if not a republican? an anarchist? where do my political views lie, in your opinion?

I think you're a dishonest idiot, Mr. Moderate, to be perfectly honest. However, my point wasn't to say that I don't think you're a conservative (you clearly are, and painfully so), rather my point was that my thinking so has nothing to do with your "simply responding to posts that you find inaccurate".

[john9blue]

I think you're a dishonest idiot, Mr. Moderate, to be perfectly honest. However, my point wasn't to say that I don't think you're a conservative (you clearly are, and painfully so), rather my point was that my thinking so has nothing to do with your "simply responding to posts that you find inaccurate".

the problem is that you don't realize which posts are inaccurate.

so how would you describe your own political views, then? this should be good.

[Woodruff]

I think you're a dishonest idiot, Mr. Moderate, to be perfectly honest. However, my point wasn't to say that I don't think you're a conservative (you clearly are, and painfully so), rather my point was that my thinking so has nothing to do with your "simply responding to posts that you find inaccurate".

the problem is that you don't realize which posts are inaccurate.

Of course I don't! That MUST be it, right? I just don't recognize it.

so how would you describe your own political views, then? this should be good.

I'm a fiscal conservative who is also socially liberal. Was it as good as you hoped?

[PLAYER57832]

It's time for The People to Stand, and use the Constitution for what it was intended...

I see, so never mind that the SUPREME COURT is the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Never mind that they AFFRMED Obama's actions were correct. It's still wrong and its Obama who is "destroying the constitution"... because Phattscotty says so!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

well first of all, it's a bit of a stretch to say that scotty is "dependent on the government"

He lives in a an area without either police or fire protection? He does not use public roads. He doesn't benefit from the fact that we have not been attacked on our shores in -- oh, a "few" decades (and if you refer to effective attacks... quite a few!)?

He also gets no benefit from advances in medicine, technology, etc.. ALL of which at least partially, if not wholly, came about because of government education and research?

Apparently Phattscotty lives on an island offshore with no ties to the rest of the world.. because unless he does, he very much does depend on the government.

[john9blue]

well first of all, it's a bit of a stretch to say that scotty is "dependent on the government"

He lives in a an area without either police or fire protection? He does not use public roads. He doesn't benefit from the fact that we have not been attacked on our shores in -- oh, a "few" decades (and if you refer to effective attacks... quite a few!)?

He also gets no benefit from advances in medicine, technology, etc.. ALL of which at least partially, if not wholly, came about because of government education and research?

Apparently Phattscotty lives on an island offshore with no ties to the rest of the world.. because unless he does, he very much does depend on the government.

he benefits from the government. that doesn't mean he's dependent on it.

you do realize that less-evolved humans lived WITHOUT GOVERNMENT at some point in history... right player? we won't instantly cease to exist without government.

[Night Strike]

I see, so never mind that the SUPREME COURT is the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Never mind that they AFFRMED Obama's actions were correct. It's still wrong and its Obama who is "destroying the constitution"... because Phattscotty says so!!!!

Actually, they unconstitutionally rewrote the law for Congress in order to persuade themselves that it was a tax and could stand (immediately after saying it wasn't a tax so they could actually rule on the case instead of throwing it out). Furthermore, there is a strong indication that Chief Justice Roberts actually changed his vote, which means someone used political pressure to get him to change his vote, which is completely antithetical to the role of the judiciary.

[AndyDufresne]

Strong indication isn't much for evidence. I really don't think Roberts (or any of the justices) would succumb to political pressure, unless it was in the actual form of black mail or something.


--Andy