Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals

[P@triot]

Aww the tears are welling up right now Get a grip pussy you dont reward crime even if they were a bystander. By the way they do speak the language asshat cause they will have to talk with mommy and daddy who refuse to learn ours.

I guess I see things differently.

A guy crossing a border to provide a better life for his family. I don't see that as wrong. It's what my grandfather did in 1925 when he brought the family over here from Germany. I don't fault someone for doing it now.

A guy who buys a company, loads it down with debt, and leaves the employees without jobs, health coverage, or the pensions they paid into, I see that as all kinds of wrong. Especially when the guy was born rich and didnt' really need the money.

In your world, you want to punish the first guy and reward teh second guy by making him president.

Joe, you're not making any sense on any level. You're trying to turn reality into something else. A "guy crossing a border to provide a better life for his family" is a big deal when passing that border is illegal. How would your family have liked it if your grandfather was denied access because people who chose to do it criminally were given access over him? You can give the tear jerking story all you want, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these people knowingly committed a major crime and are criminals.

On the flip side, the tear jerking story for the employees doesn't hold water either. It's not Mitt Romney's job to provide for liberals. Those workers are responsible for themselves, and if they didn't plan properly or didn't improve their skill sets and as such couldn't find another job, that is their own damn fault. Stopping blaming Mitt Romney for the irresponsible actions of liberals.

Personal responsibility Joe - it's a wonderful thing. You liberals should try it sometime. It safe guards you from having to rely on Mitt Romney to provide for you, and hence, you won't have to blame him for your life.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're right - any system where wealth is distributed is a bad idea. But thankfully, we don't have that in the US (except when liberals are in office).

So Republicans stop it when they're in charge?

And when was the last time that happened, exactly??

 

[JoeB131]

You're right - any system where wealth is distributed is a bad idea. But thankfully, we don't have that in the US (except when liberals are in office). See, we have a FREE market system. If you're rich, it's because you earned it. If you're poor, it's because you earned it.

You've talked over and over about the idiots you worked for who ran the company into the ground. Yet strangely, you never started your own company and put them out of business by doing it better. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

You don't beat the Nazis by becoming Nazis. You seem to think that my solution is to beat them at their own game instead of changing the game to make it fair for everyone, not just me. Wow, actually thinking about others. What an alien concept to you, I would guess.

For people who don't believe in evolution, we seem to have a lot of social Darwinists here. But I digress.

We don't have a "Free Market" system. We have plutocracy. The wealthy make the rules. And that's the problem.

 

[P@triot]

I guess I see things differently.

A guy crossing a border to provide a better life for his family. I don't see that as wrong. It's what my grandfather did in 1925 when he brought the family over here from Germany. I don't fault someone for doing it now.

A guy who buys a company, loads it down with debt, and leaves the employees without jobs, health coverage, or the pensions they paid into, I see that as all kinds of wrong. Especially when the guy was born rich and didnt' really need the money.

In your world, you want to punish the first guy and reward teh second guy by making him president.

The difference being that we can assume that your grandfather came here legally. He played the game by the rules and his children and grandchildren reaped the rewards.
You are looking to reward the children of criminals.

NO, I'm realizing the law doesn't work. Just like you as a right winger would say most gun bans don't work.

When a law isn't working, you make a new law that does work.

Incidently, being German between the World Wars, no one was throwing him a parade.

Joe - you said. Allow me to quote you: "you make a new law that does work". You do not just ignore the existing law and commit a crime yourself by violating exisitng law like Obama just did.

The framers of the US Constitution were so brilliant, they built in a mechanism for changing the Constitution, realizing the laws they created might not always work or other advancements in civilization might require additonal laws (ie you can't create laws for nuclear weapons or the internet when those things didn't exist back then). But rather than alter the Constitution legally (because they can't get the votes), they just piss all over it and break the law.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, you're not making any sense on any level. You're trying to turn reality into something else. A "guy crossing a border to provide a better life for his family" is a big deal when passing that border is illegal. How would your family have liked it if your grandfather was denied access because people who chose to do it criminally were given access over him? You can give the tear jerking story all you want, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these people knowingly committed a major crime and are criminals.

No, it's ONLY a big deal to YOU. This is one of those "crimes" that the morality police like to put up there, it creates all manner of trouble, and then you accept no responsibility for the problems you created. Like the War on drugs or prostitution laws. YOu make a silly law to feel better about yourself, but people do what they are going to do.

I don't have a problem with the guy crossing the border. I have a problem with the guy who hires him so he doesn't have to pay another guy a good wage or provide a safe workplace. That's the guy we should be going after. But he's rich and white and privilaged, so we don't.

On the flip side, the tear jerking story for the employees doesn't hold water either. It's not Mitt Romney's job to provide for liberals. Those workers are responsible for themselves, and if they didn't plan properly or didn't improve their skill sets and as such couldn't find another job, that is their own damn fault. Stopping blaming Mitt Romney for the irresponsible actions of liberals.

Horseshit. These guys did exactly what they were supposed to do, and Romney ripped them off. He said, "Hey, makea bunch of concessions to keep the plant open". They made them and lost their jobs anyway. And Romney pocketed a bunch of money while creditors were left holding the bag when AmPad or GS Steel declared bankruptcy.

Personal responsibility Joe - it's a wonderful thing. You liberals should try it sometime. It safe guards you from having to rely on Mitt Romney to provide for you, and hence, you won't have to blame him for your life.

Not at all. I think we should provide a job for anyone who wants to work one. And when the money gets divied up at the end of the day, it should be done fairly.

 

[P@triot]

We desperately need Constitutional Conservatism. It's time. Our Presidents are abusing their power. Checks & Balances are being whittled away. This current President has taken us closer to Dictatorship. The Rule of Law and the Constitution are meaningless to him. Time for all to join the Ron Paul Revolution.

Ron Paul does a fine job right where he is.

Some people just aren't cut out to be president.


No offense.

Maybe so, but you can do your part by joining his Revolution. Both Parties are currently led by Big Government Globalists who despise our Constitution. It's time for real change.

You're completely right economically, but in terms of national security, Ron Paul is a freaking nightmare. He flat out said over and over during the debates that we should ignore all other countries until they do something to us. Well, that's ignorant as hell. You don't close the barn door after the horse escapes. That's the exact foreign policy that Clinton used and it lead to Al Qaeda killing 3,000 American's in a couple of hours. Once American's are dead, it's far too late to take any action. You have to be proactive and preventative when it comes to national security. And on that subject, Ron Paul is the ultimate old kook....

 

[JoeB131]

Joe - you said. Allow me to quote you: "you make a new law that does work". You do not just ignore the existing law and commit a crime yourself by violating exisitng law like Obama just did.

The framers of the US Constitution were so brilliant, they built in a mechanism for changing the Constitution, realizing the laws they created might not always work or other advancements in civilization might require additonal laws (ie you can't create laws for nuclear weapons or the internet when those things didn't exist back then). But rather than alter the Constitution legally (because they can't get the votes), they just piss all over it and break the law.

That works on the viewpoint that the constitution actually has much to say on this matter. Actually, there is no real definition of citizenship in the original document and even though the 14th Amdendment clarified things a bit, the immigration laws are largely the province of civil law.

The thing is, what Obama is doing is perfectly legal, even if you don't like it. If not, the GOP should file articles of impeachment MOnday morning and state their case why it is so.

 

[P@triot]

He's not an 'Isolationist.'

Hey, remember, to today's GOP an "isolationist" is someone who doesn't agree that it's America's right to invade, occupy, bomb the shit out of, and then spend hundreds of billions of our dollars rebuilding any country that is currently annoying us, at a cost of thousands of American military lives, limbs, minds and families, and a couple of trillion dollars we borrow from China.

What are you, a communist!

.

Bush spent "a couple of trillion dollars" securing our nation, removing a madman from power, and bringing democracy to a nation which will help anchor stability in that region in the future.

Obama spent 5 trillion dollars lining the pockets of his friends and allies (like Solyndra, etc.).

For half the money Obama spent, Bush improved the entire world. Which one was the better value? Exactly.

 

[The T]

The difference being that we can assume that your grandfather came here legally. He played the game by the rules and his children and grandchildren reaped the rewards.
You are looking to reward the children of criminals.

NO, I'm realizing the law doesn't work. Just like you as a right winger would say most gun bans don't work.

When a law isn't working, you make a new law that does work.

Incidently, being German between the World Wars, no one was throwing him a parade.

Joe - you said. Allow me to quote you: "you make a new law that does work". You do not just ignore the existing law and commit a crime yourself by violating exisitng law like Obama just did.

The framers of the US Constitution were so brilliant, they built in a mechanism for changing the Constitution, realizing the laws they created might not always work or other advancements in civilization might require additonal laws (ie you can't create laws for nuclear weapons or the internet when those things didn't exist back then). But rather than alter the Constitution legally (because they can't get the votes), they just piss all over it and break the law.

Which is precisely what Obama is doing. he effectively gave the finger to the Constitution, The LAW, and the Congress...and is arrogantly challenging ANYONE to knock the chip off his shoulder.

 

[P@triot]

.

I know how crazy this is probably going to sound, but what the hell.

I wonder why NO ONE, pretty much anywhere, is asking WHY so many Mexican nationals are so desperate to get to America. Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge that, maybe, Mexico is a corrupt, fucked up shit hole from which people want to escape, ASAP? Would that somehow not be politically expedient, maybe?

Perhaps this would be something to address at some point. Wouldn't it be neat to have a productive, fully functioning democracy on our border?

.

Yes. But if we actually did that, you idiot liberals would spaz the fuck out like you did when Bush brought a "fully functioning democracy" to Iraq.

By the way, the fact that these people RUN from their own country instead of (and I quote you here) fighting to fix teh "corrupt, fucked up shit hole" tells me they are spineless and weak, and NOT the kind of immigrants that America was built on.

 

[JoeB131]

Bush spent "a couple of trillion dollars" securing our nation, removing a madman from power, and bringing democracy to a nation which will help anchor stability in that region in the future.

Obama spent 5 trillion dollars lining the pockets of his friends and allies (like Solyndra, etc.).

For half the money Obama spent, Bush improved the entire world. Which one was the better value? Exactly.

Bush improved the world.

I'm one of the few centrists who will argue that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, and I'll get into a fight with them over it, but the way Bush did it caused more problems than it solved.

Iraq is not a "democracy" now, it's an Iranian Satellite state. Mahmoud Amhadajihad or whatever his name is can walk down the street of Baghdad to cheering crowds and Bush had to sneak in during the middle of the night, behind heavy security and people were still throwing shoes at him. To say we got value for the money we spent there is kind of silly.

And I guess if you want to whine about Solyndra you can, but the money spent on Solyndra would buy exactly 3 F-22 Raptors, a plane we never really needed and has no use. So I guess it's a matter of putting it into persepctive.

 

[Againsheila]

The Rule of Law and the Constitution mean nothing to this President and his criminal lackeys. This guy has turned out to be such an awful fraud. All Americans should see 'The Obama Deception' film. It's the reason so many have lost all faith in our Electoral Process. This President does not have America's best interests at heart.

Same as Bush, calling the constitution a GD piece of paper. What I wouldn't give for and AMERICAN president that was more concerned about THIS country than his political goals.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. But if we actually did that, you idiot liberals would spaz the fuck out like you did when Bush brought a "fully functioning democracy" to Iraq.

By the way, the fact that these people RUN from their own country instead of (and I quote you here) fighting to fix teh "corrupt, fucked up shit hole" tells me they are spineless and weak, and NOT the kind of immigrants that America was built on.

But yet that would be a description of nearly everyone in this country, except for the Native AMericans they didn't get around to slaughtering and the black folks they brought over in chains, most of our ancestors left whatever country they came from because they didn't want to be bothered to fix the country they were in.

 

[grunt11b]

Still waiting for congress to impeach him, wondering why they have not done so yet. I know dirty harry reid would never go for it, but nobody in the house at all has even talked of it.

 

[P@triot]

The poor don't have nearly the access to family planning the middle class have... which is why by and large they are still poor.

Lack of family planning is a major cause of poverty, inside and outside the US. Family planning is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised.

This is flat out false. Family planning clinics abound in low income areas. We have poverty for numerous reasons, of which the perpetuation of reward for doing nothing is the biggest culprit.

You know what, I used to believe that crap, but watching how the private sector pits people who want to work against each other, keeping us all fighting over the last cookie, I kind of doubt it.

How's this for a trade. We replace all welfare with workfare. You get a check, but you have to be doing something useful to earn it.

And we tax the wealthy at an appropriate rate to pay for it.

Sounds fair to me.

You finally said something that makes sense! And then you had to go and ruin it with the nonsense about taking the wealthy "appropriately".

I would LOVE to relpace welfare with workfare. That would be outstanding. But since the wealthy are already taxed appropriately (and then some on top of some more), how about we just use the "workfare" workers to repair roads, clean highways, cut public lawns, etc. and the money saved on those things will pay for it? It's a win-win for everyone, except the liberal welfare group who refuses to earn anything.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

Strange, you write things that many of agree with, like the passage I highlighted. Where I disagree is, what you consider "fair" when you start discussing "fair" shares. Everybody should have a vested interest in how things are run for all our benefits. The way things work now are anything but fair, particularly taxation.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Still waiting for congress to impeach him, wondering why they have not done so yet. I know dirty harry reid would never go for it, but nobody in the house at all has even talked of it.

Maybe because Republicans learned their lesson the last time they tried to throw a highly-popular president out of office for bullshit reasons.

Oh, that and what he did is not an impeachable offense, despite your wet dreams.

 

[P@triot]

Bush spent "a couple of trillion dollars" securing our nation, removing a madman from power, and bringing democracy to a nation which will help anchor stability in that region in the future.

Obama spent 5 trillion dollars lining the pockets of his friends and allies (like Solyndra, etc.).

For half the money Obama spent, Bush improved the entire world. Which one was the better value? Exactly.

Bush improved the world.

I'm one of the few centrists who will argue that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, and I'll get into a fight with them over it, but the way Bush did it caused more problems than it solved.

Iraq is not a "democracy" now, it's an Iranian Satellite state. Mahmoud Amhadajihad or whatever his name is can walk down the street of Baghdad to cheering crowds and Bush had to sneak in during the middle of the night, behind heavy security and people were still throwing shoes at him. To say we got value for the money we spent there is kind of silly.

And I guess if you want to whine about Solyndra you can, but the money spent on Solyndra would buy exactly 3 F-22 Raptors, a plane we never really needed and has no use. So I guess it's a matter of putting it into persepctive.

What are you talking about? Mahmoud Amhadajihad is a mortal enemy of the people of Iraq. They loathe him like liberals loathe America, freedom, captialism, and the US Constitution. He would be killed the second he entered Iraq.

And just out of curiousity, besides the idiot liberal, who in their right freaking mind would have the perspective that spending $5 trillion into debt on friends and family is better than spending $2 trillion to rid the world of a madman?

Finally, Iraq has had several elections since Hussein was removed. So to say it is not a democracy is just pure liberal bullshit.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If he threw enough money and exerted his brute force over them, Iraqis would step in line, make no mistake.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

So how much additional should the rich pay so you can have what you want?

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%. . . .


. . . .The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46% of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. . . .
Fact check: The wealthy already pay more tax

By the time you add on state and local taxes, many of the rich--those earning a really comfortable income whether or not they are millionares--are easily paying close to 50% of their income or more in taxes. And that doesn't count the extra tax monies and fees required to conduct business as those rich folks are running the businesses that provide jobs and an income for everybody else.

At least those who will have jobs after 800,000 or more illegals get work permits.

Hell, I'm certainly not wealthy. And what was, until recently, a comfortable living has started to pinch a bit. I already work two jobs and run a small farm. What exactly would be my fair share?