Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals

[JoeB131]

Race card!

It's irrelevant because Latinos are white. And when they become business owners, which is imminent, you better watch out, buddy, because they're not going to like the anti-business climate produced by Democrats who hate small business owners because they are free enterprise entrepreneurs. With their majority which you are creating, they are going to screw the Marxism for which Obama is pushing with his "redistribution of wealth" propaganda by eventually going conservative. It's in their conservative genes.

You wealth-redistribution guys are engaging in a major foot shoot with Obama as your leader.

A lot of blacks are business owners, and few of them vote Republican. They remember Willie Horton and Jesse Helm's White Hands and Reagan's Welfare Queen, and all the other despicable race stuff the GOP has done over the years. Hispanics will remember that the GOP engaged in this stuff now, and for a few generations.

If the GOP doesn't get it's head out of its ass soon, and stop being an enemy of working people, it's going to go the way of the Whigs. It'll be a party that be powerful in the South and maybe some backward western states shaped like rectangles, but nowhere else.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You can tell a democrat by his pandering to the lowest possible denominator (racism)

No, my problem is that our president is a vote pandering slimy character who has put his political ambitions above proper Constitutional restraints- it's disheartening and shameful.

The fact that Marco Rubio was attempting legislation via the route provided by our Constitution and was criticized by democrats as "taking the Dream out of the Dream Act", but now that the president has done it (having stolen the idea because he has none of his own) people like you cheer him on. This makes you not only despicable but disloyal to our Constitution-

Sorry, I was a Republican until you dumbasses nominated Romney.

And a lot of sensible Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain thought this was a good idea.

Finally, this guy is realizing you can't play nice with these jokers. He's finally hitting back. It's about fucking time.

So which GOP candidate did you support Joe?

Reagan both times. Bush-41 Both times. Bush-43 both times. Althought I gave serious thought to Perot in 1992. Even voted for McCain and Dole. Voted for Santorum in the primary.

But, two issues this year.

First, you guys nominated a member of a cult I consider pure evil. so you lost my vote this year.

Second, the GOP has had a bad habit of late of taking the side of the wealthy over the side of the working man. Didn't always used to be this way. At one time they made a serious effort to get the support of working people. Now the think they can just fool them with BS about guns and gays and abortions and they'll vote against their own economic interests.

Which apparently a lot of you do.

Take this issue. The real problem here is not mean old illegals waiving their scrotums at our immigrations laws. It's rich people who don't want to pay a working man a fair wage. But they'll get you all upset about them.

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmm. Is Joe a sock of JakeS? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, no. Anyone with a bit of common sense would be able to tell I have nothing but contempt for JakeS, a guy who knows the GOP has lost its way, but has onvinced himself that Romney is the guy who is going to fix the problems when he is the problem.

 

[Pheonixops]

'The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act'

Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young | The Daily Caller

I am beginning to hate this would-be asshole tinhat dictator.

Prosecutorial discretion is not ‘bypassing Congress.’

The partisan right is clearly attempting to contrive a ‘controversy’ where none exists, in complete contradiction of the facts:

[Prosecutorial discretion] is NOT a blanket legalization program or a policy designed to give large groups of people temporary relief. No one will get a permanent legal status, nor is there a program to sign up for. Contrary to recent attention-grabbing headlines, DHS’s announcement is about targeting its limited enforcement resources on high priority immigration cases by removing low priority cases from the system. As AILA’s advisory clarifies, “the announcement applies ONLY to cases already in the system, ensuring that low priority cases do not continue to clog up an already overburdened immigration court system.”

Immigration Lawyers Clarify What DHS

Indeed, it’s incumbent upon DHS to use its limited resources in the most efficient manner possible, to do otherwise would be a violation of the public trust.

The policy is a deferment only, until the more serious cases are addressed first. There is no ‘amnesty.’

The policy comports with Constitutional case law, in that one is not subject to punitive measures as a consequent of his parent’s misdeeds:

“The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents, It is…difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States.” Plyler v. Doe (1982).

The majority of the individuals in question came to the United States legally as children, and lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. The administration’s policy is both appropriate and wise, as it focuses resources on the most dangerous and violent criminals for removal or incarceration.

Excellent rational points.

 

[JoeB131]

So which GOP candidate did you support Joe?

Hmmm. Is Joe a sock of JakeS? Inquiring minds want to know.

Has he ever supported one of the GOP candidates? All I ever read from him, apart from his weird bigotry against Mormons, was his defense of everything Obama?

So I'm responsible for your lack of attention?

Go back to November or January, where I made very serious defenses of Gingrich and Santorum, guys who would have been fine. I even like Perry until I realized he was eating paint chips along side Palin as a child.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry, I was a Republican until you dumbasses nominated Romney.

And a lot of sensible Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain thought this was a good idea.

Finally, this guy is realizing you can't play nice with these jokers. He's finally hitting back. It's about fucking time.

So which GOP candidate did you support Joe?

Hmmm. Is Joe a sock of JakeS? Inquiring minds want to know.

A sock no two peas in a pod yes.

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmm. Is Joe a sock of JakeS? Inquiring minds want to know.

Has he ever supported one of the GOP candidates? All I ever read from him, apart from his weird bigotry against Mormons, was his defense of everything Obama?

I've noticed the same phenomena. And I am really suspicious of somebody who claims to have been a Republican until. . . . .

It is legitimate to change parties. I've done so. I was a strong Democrat active in political campaigns and such as a young adult. But over the years the increasing liberalism of the Democratic Party made it less and less of a happy home for me and I could not rationalize away the harm I witnessed up close and personal in that. So I finally had to admit that my party had left me.

These days I'm not much happier with the Republicans, but at least I am allowed to be my conservative self in the Republican Party so I register Republican.

I have seen no conservative side to JoeB in any respect, so it is hard to believe that he has ever been a Republican.

Well, again, I would invite you to go back to my November and December posts... But I suspect long term memory is one of the problems a lot of you guys have. Because back in November and December, a lot of you guys were screaming about how Romney was really a liberal and you couldn't trust him and he was a flip-flopper who didn't care about your issues. I'm the only one who has remained constant. I thought Romney was a scumbag then and I think Romney is a scumbag now.

My problem with the Republicans, as I've stated many time, is that they've become antithetical to everything they believe in. If they are a party that believes in individual responsiblitity and self-reliance, they've done everything they can to make more and more of us dependent on government so a few rich douchebags like Romney can have car elevators and Polo ponies.

And that's the problem. They've figured out how to play people like you. I doubt you're rich, but you are voting for rich people's interests.

I figured around 2008 that this was a crazy train. Probalby around the time I watched my Romney supporting boss fire all his long term employees (myself included) because the people he was hiring now would work for a lot less and didn't realize he was a moron.

I really had hope this year that the GOP was starting to get it. Gingrich and Santorum and Perry all seemed to get that the worst part of this recession was not that Mitt couldn't afford another Car Elevator. It was that real working people were out there suffereing and afraid for the future.

Too bad they aren't the folks who run things in the GOP anymore.

 

[Foxfyre]

So how do we go about dealing with a rogue President who is making executive orders that countermand the law of the land? Does anybody here honestly think such a concept is legitimate? When he is inaugerated, the President swears:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Should we add the phrase "....and uphold the laws of the land." or some such?

The mainstream media will continue to shrug off any misdoings by this President, and our resident liberals on this and countless other blogs will also defend him in anything, to deflect and justify by pointing to sins of Republicans, and accuse us of being hateful, racist, partisan, ideologues, etc. when we object.

Obviously impeachment at this late date is not an option.

Why don't they just charge him with a host of criminal charges? He has violated the US Constitution on multiple occassions (a Constitution which he took an oath to uphold). He has broken the law numerous times - why don't we just charge him and remove him from office? I suppose the thought of drunk Joe Biden running the country scares everyone too much to actually stop Barack Hussein from breaking the law.

Because there is only six month's left in this term and less than that until we have the next Presidential election. Barack Hussein Obama controls the White House, the Senate, and largely controls the media and therefore largely controls the message for anybody who doesn't do their own research and analysis which is most Americans. The Republicans will be made out to be the worst kind of ideologues and political opportunists, witch hunters, and all that all the way to the election and there is no way they would be able to make their case and show people the truth within that time frame.

And Fearless Leader knows it which is why he is waiting until now to make moves like this.

If nothing else should persuade us to look to the track record and character of the person we are electing to high office, this should be a really good lesson. Alas, it likely won't be.

 

[JoeB131]

You're wrong because they accept me. And I rail against the Republicans all the time. It is the party that nominated a John McCain, one of the most liberal Republicans to come down the Pike in awhile, who chose as his running mate one of the most conservative Republicans who has made it into the broad public view.

You don't find that in the Democratic Party.

Really.

You mean like when the Democrats nominated Al Gore and he took as a running mate Joe Leiberman, one of the most conservative Democrats?

A couple of real problems with your thinking here.

The first is that "conservative" and "liberal" have any real meaning in a world where an Ann Coulter can say that RomneyCare is a market based solution and ObamaCare is "Sooooocialism", when they are in fact the same thing.

The second is, and I know you are going to have a conceptual problem here with this- is that both parties have been co-opted by the wealthy and they spend a lot of time keeping you worked up so you don't notice the real shenannigans going on.

Both parties were knee deep in that fiasco in 2008. The one where the banks were deregulated, got us all to run up a bunch of debt, left us with busted 401K's and underwater mortgages while they got bailouts and eight figure salaries.

But nope, you need to be upset that these illegals are out there doing jobs you wouldn't want to do for money you'd never accept.

 

[JoeB131]

One needs to put it into basic ape terms for them....like:

Say there is a plague and a group of families came to together with their food and water to survive, but somehow Jose, Manuel and Raul got into their group and started eating the food of the group. The families have a choice to let the "illegals" to steal their food and water which causes some of the families to starve OR kick their ass out of the home so the families can keep the original intent of their group.

The illegal loving liberals here would change their minds if they were in a family above or maybe they would allow illegals to steal food and water from their family.....

]

That's an interesting analogy, although I think the word your limited brain was looking for was "Famine", not "Plague".

but here's a better one.

A group of families came together to survive, but one family decided that it was going to hoard all the food, and make the other families fight each other for the privilage of getting a slice of the food they worked very hard to produce. And then they brought in Jose and his family to do some of the work the other families refused to do, and pointed out that the other families should blame Jose's family instead of them.

Because Jose's family and all the other families are kind of in the same boat. There's enough food to go around, but 1 family is keeping more than half of it and finding ways to cheat the rest out more of the rest.

There. That works much better.

PS - If you want to read how this story usuallyturns out, read up on the Bourbons, the Romanovs and the Pahlevis...

 

[Mac1958]

Obama got his ASS KICKED in November 2010 and nothing has changed since then. He's still a radical Marxist.

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama got his ASS KICKED in November 2010 and nothing has changed since then. He's still a radical Marxist.

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

Stop asking them perfectly logical questions, darn you!

 

[Political Junky]

You're wrong because they accept me. And I rail against the Republicans all the time. It is the party that nominated a John McCain, one of the most liberal Republicans to come down the Pike in awhile, who chose as his running mate one of the most conservative Republicans who has made it into the broad public view.

You don't find that in the Democratic Party.

Really.

You mean like when the Democrats nominated Al Gore and he took as a running mate Joe Leiberman, one of the most conservative Democrats?

A couple of real problems with your thinking here.

The first is that "conservative" and "liberal" have any real meaning in a world where an Ann Coulter can say that RomneyCare is a market based solution and ObamaCare is "Sooooocialism", when they are in fact the same thing.

The second is, and I know you are going to have a conceptual problem here with this- is that both parties have been co-opted by the wealthy and they spend a lot of time keeping you worked up so you don't notice the real shenannigans going on.

Both parties were knee deep in that fiasco in 2008. The one where the banks were deregulated, got us all to run up a bunch of debt, left us with busted 401K's and underwater mortgages while they got bailouts and eight figure salaries.

But nope, you need to be upset that these illegals are out there doing jobs you wouldn't want to do for money you'd never accept.

I also recall republicans attacking Lieberman as a Jew, but I'll bet no one else remembers that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obama got his ASS KICKED in November 2010 and nothing has changed since then. He's still a radical Marxist.

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

One of the most fundamental tenets of Marxism is to weaken and disempower the rich and eventually confiscate all their property. And because the less rich people are told over and over and over how the rich are screwing them and cheating them and keeping them down, the Marxist gets plenty of support for the game plan. Once the worst has happened, it is too late to stop it.

 

[JoeB131]

[
I also recall republicans attacking Lieberman as a Jew, but I'll bet no one else remembers that.

You're right. I don't. I don't recall anyone on either side ever really saying anything bad about Joe until 2006, and he didn't get the memo that Saddam Hussein was a clubbed baby seal.

And then it was his own party that turned on him.

What I remember about the Cheney/Leiberman debate was how intelligent and civil it was, and I wondered what these guys were doing at the bottom of the ticket when the guys at the top of their respective tickets were such duds.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama got his ASS KICKED in November 2010 and nothing has changed since then. He's still a radical Marxist.

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

One of the most fundamental tenets of Marxism is to weaken and disempower the rich and eventually confiscate all their property. And because the less rich people are told over and over and over how the rich are screwing them and cheating them and keeping them down, the Marxist gets plenty of support for the game plan. Once the worst has happened, it is too late to stop it.

Seriously?

no, honestly, you seriously believe that?

If there's hostility towards teh "rich" by the "less rich" it's because of their own behavior.

The behavior where you crash the entire economy, need a government bailout to survive, still insist on taking your bonus, and then sit on your cash instead of investing in jobs.

I don't need to be told anything, I see examples of it inmy life daily, thank you.

 

[Mac1958]

Obama got his ASS KICKED in November 2010 and nothing has changed since then. He's still a radical Marxist.

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

Stop asking them perfectly logical questions, darn you!

I just get so CONFUSED...

.

 

[Pheonixops]

I just hope we can get through until November with this man in the white house..

He and his comrades in arms want to see full blown race riots in this country..

First it was woman, then blacks, then homosexuals, now illegal immigrants..

Explain. How the fuck do you compare blacks, gays and women to illegal aleins?

I'm talking about how they have stirred the pot on all of these people..
the so called war on women, the Zimmerman case which should of never been made into a national media frenzy and fed into by the race hustlers, Obama evolving on homosexual marriage, and now this..

Yeah, limbaugh and hannity definitely exploited that case. Good point.

 

[Mac1958]

Obama got his ASS KICKED in November 2010 and nothing has changed since then. He's still a radical Marxist.

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

One of the most fundamental tenets of Marxism is to weaken and disempower the rich and eventually confiscate all their property. And because the less rich people are told over and over and over how the rich are screwing them and cheating them and keeping them down, the Marxist gets plenty of support for the game plan. Once the worst has happened, it is too late to stop it.

Kinda tough to reconcile that with the fact that the last time this country was really humming was when the top marginal tax rate was 39.6%. Such a rate is not going to disempower (not sure that's a word) the rich, it just isn't.

This "sky is falling, the paranoids are out to get us" schtick isn't very intellectually honest.

.

 

[EriktheRed]

Sometimes it takes a Rude One to really put issues such as this in perspective, and no one does it better than this guy:

Yes, it's a cynical election year pander for El Vote-o Latino. But that doesn't make it bad policy. It's the DREAM Act lite, and, as such it makes the United States a far more compassionate country. Another way to think about it is this: President Obama just changed the week's narrative on his campaign. It totally fucks with the Romney campaign's focus on the economy.

Yesterday, a Romney bus tried to disrupt Obama's speech in Cleveland by honking like the braying ass its candidate is. As Romney heads off on a magic bus trip through several states, this is the Obama campaign's "Fuck you and have a great time, Mitt. Guess what everyone's gonna ask you about now, motherfucker? Oh, and shove your horn up your ass."

Update: The shorter version of President Obama's statement today is "Congress can go fuck itself with its filibuster. Somebody's gotta get shit done." Oh, and imagine the convulsion of revulsion that would have vomited out of the press during the Bush administration if a liberal reporter had interrupted the President while he was making a statement. Strip that bastard's credentials and never let him near the White House again.

The Rude Pundit