Can we talk about what Obama actually DID?

[Conservative65]

The Senate passed a bipartisan bill with 68 votes...seriously, in this divided government, 68 votes in the Senate on an immigration bill that the Boehner has refused to allow the full House to vote on...because it will pass. This bill was passed by the Senate over 500 days ago.

Tell me, why would the House take up a bill that was unconstitutional from the get go? The Senate bill contained fines and fees which are revenue raising measures that constitutionally must originate in the House. Tell me where I got this wrong, if you can.

Democrats conveniently miss that and when it is shown to them they ignore it as an inconvenience.

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

so you admit that obama and all the dems lied when they said it was not a tax? OK, add that to the list of lies.

Obama himself said it wasn't based on a tax. However, when it was upheld based on the ability to tax, where was he saying no?

 

[Conservative65]

Okay.

So what is the GOP actually going to do about it?

And more to the point, what is the GOP going to do about our immigration situation, if anything?

.

A better question is what CAN the GOP do about it than will actually be implemented?

Solving our illegal immigration problem is easy. Build a fence, close the borders, and shoot any SOB, after one warning, that tries to sneak in. I put locks on my doors at my house which tells those uninvited not to come in. If they still choose to do so, that's what I would do to them.

What about those who are already here, and their children?

.

We need a plan for them (the non-criminals who are actually working) that will allow them to stay, pay a large fine for breaking our laws, and get at the end of the line for citizenship. They should receive no govt assistence of any kind until they become citizens, any violation of any law should result in immedicate deportation of their entire family.

Remember, those people are in this country ILLEGALLY.

We also need to repeal the anchor baby laws which were made for slaves, not illegal aliens.

Irrelevant that they are parents of citizens. They are ILLEGAL and that doesn't justify them being allowed to stay because their criminal act is the only reason the little shits they squeezed out happenn to be incorrectly given citizenship under some misinterpretation of the Constitution.

At least if they apply for visas, they are following the laws. Interesting that you justify breaking the law. Doesn't say a lot about your character.

You've never encountered a person with more character, dummy.

You haven't got the ability, it seems, to grasp the nuances of this issue. You are simply not bright enough.

I've picked up dog shit in my back yard that had more character than you ever will boy.

The nuances are that the affirmative action boy in the White House did what he did to pander votes. Seems you missed HIS claims, on several occassions, that he didn't have the authority to do what he did.

You seem shocked that a politician would pander for votes.

I saw his claims. He was referring to various issues....not what he did yesterday. Pay attention to the details.

What's an "affirmative action boy"? Is that you demonstrating character?

I'm not shocked that you won't admit what Obama does is pandering.

It's a President that got elected based on skin color instead of what he can do. Those doing so don't show character. Those calling them out for it, try to teach you what it is to have some.

I think you are lecturing the wrong poster, I am on your side.

The site is hard to follow. If you are carrying on a conversation on the same thread as I am with that same person, it quotes me when you respond to that other person. Sometimes it appears as if the statement was to me.

We agree. Obama is a lying POS.

 

[bendog]

Tell me, why would the House take up a bill that was unconstitutional from the get go? The Senate bill contained fines and fees which are revenue raising measures that constitutionally must originate in the House. Tell me where I got this wrong, if you can.

Democrats conveniently miss that and when it is shown to them they ignore it as an inconvenience.

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

so you admit that obama and all the dems lied when they said it was not a tax? OK, add that to the list of lies.

Obama himself said it wasn't based on a tax. However, when it was upheld based on the ability to tax, where was he saying no?

Oh, he was lying his ass off. Personally, I think it was constitutional under the commerce clause too, but Roberts is a foe of commerce clause power. But the ACA wasn't a revenue bill, so all this shite about the origination clause is just bullshite that wouldn't get past freshmen civics in a decent college.

 

[BlindBoo]

The irony impaired far left drone proves that it is Obama's way or the highway..

Compromise to the far left is do it our way or not alt all as they keep showing.

Then again ACA was passed with the majority of Americans against it, now it has been proven that it is horrible law that they had to lie about to get passed.

Yet the far left drones still support it.

So it seems that the far left usually does the opposite of what the people want, thus proving why you should never vote far left..

Boehner I got 98 percent of what I wanted - CBS News

 

[Conservative65]

Democrats conveniently miss that and when it is shown to them they ignore it as an inconvenience.

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

so you admit that obama and all the dems lied when they said it was not a tax? OK, add that to the list of lies.

Obama himself said it wasn't based on a tax. However, when it was upheld based on the ability to tax, where was he saying no?

Oh, he was lying his ass off. Personally, I think it was constitutional under the commerce clause too, but Roberts is a foe of commerce clause power. But the ACA wasn't a revenue bill, so all this shite about the origination clause is just bullshite that wouldn't get past freshmen civics in a decent college.

So you

The Senate passed a bipartisan bill with 68 votes...seriously, in this divided government, 68 votes in the Senate on an immigration bill that the Boehner has refused to allow the full House to vote on...because it will pass. This bill was passed by the Senate over 500 days ago.

Tell me, why would the House take up a bill that was unconstitutional from the get go? The Senate bill contained fines and fees which are revenue raising measures that constitutionally must originate in the House. Tell me where I got this wrong, if you can.

Democrats conveniently miss that and when it is shown to them they ignore it as an inconvenience.

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

Yes, and the reason it didn't violate the origination clause is because it was NOT primarily a revenue bill, but rather a bill to establish universal care, which raised taxes to accomplish that goal. Had it been a general revenue bill, it could not have been upheld. And, I'm not a fan of obamacare. But I do think it would help is people at least tried to apply pretty basic notions of con law.

Depends on how you define primarily. Guess you do buy into the inaccurate interpretation.

 

[bendog]

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

so you admit that obama and all the dems lied when they said it was not a tax? OK, add that to the list of lies.

Obama himself said it wasn't based on a tax. However, when it was upheld based on the ability to tax, where was he saying no?

Oh, he was lying his ass off. Personally, I think it was constitutional under the commerce clause too, but Roberts is a foe of commerce clause power. But the ACA wasn't a revenue bill, so all this shite about the origination clause is just bullshite that wouldn't get past freshmen civics in a decent college.

So you

Tell me, why would the House take up a bill that was unconstitutional from the get go? The Senate bill contained fines and fees which are revenue raising measures that constitutionally must originate in the House. Tell me where I got this wrong, if you can.

Democrats conveniently miss that and when it is shown to them they ignore it as an inconvenience.

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

Yes, and the reason it didn't violate the origination clause is because it was NOT primarily a revenue bill, but rather a bill to establish universal care, which raised taxes to accomplish that goal. Had it been a general revenue bill, it could not have been upheld. And, I'm not a fan of obamacare. But I do think it would help is people at least tried to apply pretty basic notions of con law.

Depends on how you define primarily. Guess you do buy into the inaccurate interpretation.

No, I buy into the one constitutional lawyers and judges buy into. And not the one of screech radio.

 

[Conservative65]

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

so you admit that obama and all the dems lied when they said it was not a tax? OK, add that to the list of lies.

Obama himself said it wasn't based on a tax. However, when it was upheld based on the ability to tax, where was he saying no?

Oh, he was lying his ass off. Personally, I think it was constitutional under the commerce clause too, but Roberts is a foe of commerce clause power. But the ACA wasn't a revenue bill, so all this shite about the origination clause is just bullshite that wouldn't get past freshmen civics in a decent college.

So you

Democrats conveniently miss that and when it is shown to them they ignore it as an inconvenience.

I'm not a dem, but you need to get an educ on con law outside of screech radio. Since Justice Story, a revenue bill is a bill that deals explicitly with taxes, and bill that does something that incidentally does something with taxes (like the ACA) can originate in either chamber.

Obamacare was upheld under the government's ability to tax. Seems your bubble has popped.

Yes, and the reason it didn't violate the origination clause is because it was NOT primarily a revenue bill, but rather a bill to establish universal care, which raised taxes to accomplish that goal. Had it been a general revenue bill, it could not have been upheld. And, I'm not a fan of obamacare. But I do think it would help is people at least tried to apply pretty basic notions of con law.

Depends on how you define primarily. Guess you do buy into the inaccurate interpretation.

No, I buy into the one constitutional lawyers and judges buy into. And not the one of screech radio.

So you blindly accept what you're told. If that it what people are supposed to do on these issues, we'd still have segregated school because judges once told us that separate but equal was constitutional. You seem to do a very good job bending over, grabbing your ankles, and taking one in the ass without ever considering that what is said is wrong.

 

[g5000]

Tell me, why would the House take up a bill that was unconstitutional from the get go? The Senate bill contained fines and fees which are revenue raising measures that constitutionally must originate in the House. Tell me where I got this wrong, if you can.

I am happy to tell you where you got this wrong.You really have no idea how legislation works.

Any legislation which has revenue raising measures has a bill that is written in the Senate, and a bill that is written in the House. Then after each camera writes and passes their own separate bills, the two get together for an informal reconciliation of the two bills. Horse trading. Then the final form is passed in the House, and then sent to the Senate, and then to the President.

Boehner has spiked every single House immigration bill that has come his way.

 

[g5000]

Boehner was afraid to let immigration reform come to a vote because he is allowing his party to be held hostage by a bigoted minority. Four out of five Americans want illegal immigrants to be provided a path to citizenship or permanent legal status. But Boehner chocked on his Will of the American People pipe when he smoked that. He decided instead to fellate the 13 percent who want to boot the illegals out.

It's as simple as that. If he had allowed the immigration reform bill to come to the floor, it would have passed. So he spiked it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm listening to Sean Hannity interviewing Austin Goolsby about Obama's decision right now.

Well, actually, they're both just screaming at and interrupting each other, but I did hear this:

Sean Hannity called Obama a "rigid ideologue".

Sean Hannity called someone else a "rigid ideologue".



.

 

[jc456]

Despite the far left propaganda.:.

So when do we see the bill from the new Congress?

.

In January!

 

[bendog]

Boehner was afraid to let immigration reform come to a vote because he is allowing his party to be held hostage by a bigoted minority. Four out of five Americans want illegal immigrants to be provided a path to citizenship or permanent legal status. But Boehner chocked on his Will of the American People pipe when he smoked that. He decided instead to fellate the 13 percent who want to boot the illegals out.

It's as simple as that. If he had allowed the immigration reform bill to come to the floor, it would have passed. So he spiked it.

Exactly. Although, practically speaking if he chose not to fellate RW immigration fringe in the House, it might cost him the speakership. I guess we differ on what the gop 2015 plan is/was. I don't think McConnell was going to continue pushing the legal status provisions. I think they planned to take up corp taxes, defense spending and making knife cuts to Obamacare. Immigration would come up in early 2016 in an effort to put something on Obama's desk to veto or force a filibuster, so that the gop could try and paint the dems as being "intransigent on compromise." (I could actually imitate McConnell saying that.)

Now if I'm Boehner, a relatively self-made millionaire small biz, pro growth, low tax, small govt guy who likes to golf, I'd say "fck it." And bring up the original Senate bill. But apparently he's hooked on his job.

 

[jc456]

they did, but Harry "Whorehouse" Reid shelved them, as he did with 99.99999999% of what the Republicans proposed.

So they can't write a new one in January, when they're in control?

Wouldn't that be a good idea?

.

Well, I guess you have to wait until....wait for it...........................January to get here.

 

[Mac1958]

they did, but Harry "Whorehouse" Reid shelved them, as he did with 99.99999999% of what the Republicans proposed.

So they can't write a new one in January, when they're in control?

Wouldn't that be a good idea?

.

Well, I guess you have to wait until....wait for it...........................January to get here.

I haven't heard anyone say they're going to pass a bill, including the conservatives here who are saying that no bill is needed.

Have you heard anything? Toss out a link if you have....

.

 

[jc456]

It does give the GOP an opportunity at least to add or modify some of the conditions. May not go anywhere, but at least maybe a conversation can occur.

What worries me Mac, is with Obama's speech, and this last years wave of kids that came here and are likely to stay, that there is going to now more than ever be the message sent out that if you can get here, you'll likely be able to stay.

We could really be in for a tsunami from the south.

Thanks for the response, for a minute there I thought everyone had me on ignore.

I'm just mystified as to why the GOP doesn't want to just pass a bill. If they're so sure of their positions, why the hell won't they put them in writing?

.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
they did, but Harry "Whorehouse" Reid shelved them, as he did with 99.99999999% of what the Republicans proposed.

Hasn't it occurred to you that what the GOP proposed is bullshit. You can't name a single GOP policy in the last 40 years that has helped a majority of Americans. You know they don't want to help the middle class. They hate the poor and minorities, some more than others. How do we know? Listen to their leaders.

Wow what a hater you are!!!!! You want us all to die right?

 

[jc456]

they did, but Harry "Whorehouse" Reid shelved them, as he did with 99.99999999% of what the Republicans proposed.

So they can't write a new one in January, when they're in control?

Wouldn't that be a good idea?

.

Well, I guess you have to wait until....wait for it...........................January to get here.

I haven't heard anyone say they're going to pass a bill, including the conservatives here who are saying that no bill is needed.

Have you heard anything? Toss out a link if you have....

.

Well......I'm thinking, that they have to wait to actually be sworn in to write a bill.

 

[Mac1958]

they did, but Harry "Whorehouse" Reid shelved them, as he did with 99.99999999% of what the Republicans proposed.

So they can't write a new one in January, when they're in control?

Wouldn't that be a good idea?

.

Well, I guess you have to wait until....wait for it...........................January to get here.

I haven't heard anyone say they're going to pass a bill, including the conservatives here who are saying that no bill is needed.

Have you heard anything? Toss out a link if you have....

.

Well......I'm thinking, that they have to wait to actually be sworn in to write a bill.

Well yes, that would be true.

So I guess that means you haven't seen anything either.

.

 

[jc456]

And why, precisely, wouldn't the GOP jump at this opportunity to pass a bill and put it on Obama's desk?

What am I missing?

I would say that you are missing the fact that some very large employers who are very big supporters of the Republican party, in no way want their source of cheap labor to dry up.

Repubs are all talk, no actions about immigration reform. And there is a reason. Cheap workers who do a decent job.

Nonsense. Democrats would be seeing 5% of their votes leave the country if 11million illegals were deported.

that's all this is about is votes. He lost, he wants more votes for the left. The way to accomplish that is break the law. Badaboom done!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

they did, but Harry "Whorehouse" Reid shelved them, as he did with 99.99999999% of what the Republicans proposed.

So they can't write a new one in January, when they're in control?

Wouldn't that be a good idea?

.

Well, I guess you have to wait until....wait for it...........................January to get here.

I haven't heard anyone say they're going to pass a bill, including the conservatives here who are saying that no bill is needed.

Have you heard anything? Toss out a link if you have....

.

Well......I'm thinking, that they have to wait to actually be sworn in to write a bill.

Well yes, that would be true.

So I guess that means you haven't seen anything either.

.

Well first Harry Reid will do nothing. So what's the point of bringing any new bill in until the new congress is in session.

 

[g5000]

Obama refused to call the insurance mandate a tax. You can see for yourself right here as he is interviewed by a sympathetic interviewer, George Stephanopoulos: Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - ABC News

Not only does Obama refuse to admit it is a tax, he goes even further in trying to label the voluntarily uninsured as deadbeats. This was a common refrain from the Left for years.

The irony of this statement is incredibly rich. One third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts, and it is these actual deadbeats the rest of us are having to pay for under ObamaCare with a Medicaid expansion, insurance subsidies, and higher insurance rates.

For Obama and his parroting minions to call those people who will be forced to carry other people on their backs the deadbeats is as leeching, redistributive, socialistic thinking as it gets.


Now, this does not let the Right off the hook, though. Every American has had their hand out for government gifts for over a century. Every business wants a handout for equipment depreciation and other expenses. Several sectors ask for tax carve outs. An advantageous tax break for a corporation has the exact same unleveling of the playing field effect as a regulation designed to make it harder for upstarts to get off the ground.

The American people absolutely refuse to give up the mortgage interest deduction even though it drives the prices of houses up and is extremely regressive.

There are over $1.2 trillion of these kinds of government bennies handed out each year, causing higher tax rates and federal deficits, and distorting the living shit out of our tax structure.

So what we have is a system where you are punished with higher taxes for not buying a house, or not buying the right kind of refrigerator, or not using the right kind of energy source, or not buying the right kind of car, or not having kids. Massive government behavioral control experimentation.

It was not any leap at all to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance, kids.

You were stabbed with your own "gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it" attitudes.