Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These children didn't step into a Star Trek Transporter in El Salvador and then materialize in Texas. They walked in from a contiguous country: Mexico. Matters not what their citizenship is. They don't qualify to be here because they came in from a contiguous country.Smile all you want, friend. But you called me a liar and cannot prove it.
Moving on.
Smiling....I've called you a liar and I have proven it. With post after post explicitly and laughably contradicting your claim. From my very first on this thread.
You lament about Obama even when he does exactly what you say he should do. You lie about my argument. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to do either.
Yet you do both. Moving on.
When immigrants are indeed coming from a contiguous country, that is not a lie, now is it? You have deliberately misconstrued my words.
All I heard from you two was "it's bush fault." Spinning the purpose of a law saying "That law Bush passed makes it harder for Obama to deport these children."
Obama has done nothing I wanted. Frankly I don't care. I caught you putting words in my mouth anyway. Telling me I know nothing about the law. I know plenty about it. So don't call me a liar without checking yourself first. Try launching that character assassination on someone else, okay? I will have nothing further to do with you. Good day.
Seriously. Why have laws?
These children didn't step into a Star Trek Transporter in El Salvador and then materialize in Texas. They walked in from a contiguous country: Mexico. Matters not what their citizenship is. They don't qualify to be here because they came in from a contiguous country.Smiling....I've called you a liar and I have proven it. With post after post explicitly and laughably contradicting your claim. From my very first on this thread.
You lament about Obama even when he does exactly what you say he should do. You lie about my argument. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to do either.
Yet you do both. Moving on.
When immigrants are indeed coming from a contiguous country, that is not a lie, now is it? You have deliberately misconstrued my words.
All I heard from you two was "it's bush fault." Spinning the purpose of a law saying "That law Bush passed makes it harder for Obama to deport these children."
Obama has done nothing I wanted. Frankly I don't care. I caught you putting words in my mouth anyway. Telling me I know nothing about the law. I know plenty about it. So don't call me a liar without checking yourself first. Try launching that character assassination on someone else, okay? I will have nothing further to do with you. Good day.
Democrats had better stop this. The People are wise to this tactic to do an end run around our immigration laws. WE ARE PISSED MORE THAN IN 2010!
How do you ask a twp-year old what country is he a citizen of?Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?
What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?
Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.
As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.
Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.
You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)
And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.
And the so called "amnesty" has yet to be announced, thus, billions will be spent repatriating/deporting minors.
Psssst! Star Trek is a television show.These children didn't step into a Star Trek Transporter in El Salvador and then materialize in Texas. They walked in from a contiguous country: Mexico. Matters not what their citizenship is. They don't qualify to be here because they came in from a contiguous country.When immigrants are indeed coming from a contiguous country, that is not a lie, now is it? You have deliberately misconstrued my words.
All I heard from you two was "it's bush fault." Spinning the purpose of a law saying "That law Bush passed makes it harder for Obama to deport these children."
Obama has done nothing I wanted. Frankly I don't care. I caught you putting words in my mouth anyway. Telling me I know nothing about the law. I know plenty about it. So don't call me a liar without checking yourself first. Try launching that character assassination on someone else, okay? I will have nothing further to do with you. Good day.
Democrats had better stop this. The People are wise to this tactic to do an end run around our immigration laws. WE ARE PISSED MORE THAN IN 2010!
Hey! Are you TK's study partner?
Psssst! Star Trek is a television show.These children didn't step into a Star Trek Transporter in El Salvador and then materialize in Texas. They walked in from a contiguous country: Mexico. Matters not what their citizenship is. They don't qualify to be here because they came in from a contiguous country.
Democrats had better stop this. The People are wise to this tactic to do an end run around our immigration laws. WE ARE PISSED MORE THAN IN 2010!
Hey! Are you TK's study partner?
[
Damn Joe...you really are something...
The media dumped on W at every turn...and I was glad they did. Not so with your Messiah. If you can't see that, you can't see anything.
[
So the rich who run the R party (guess what Joey...the rich run the D party too) want all the illegals made citizens...just like you do...so why so much hate on them when you agree with them.
[
And you claim I am a racist, you do not even know me. DUMB, but right out of the DNC handbook...so predictable.
[
So if fences do not work, why are there ANY fences anywhere? Someone said why put fences around the White House if they do not work....more ignorance, but again right out of the DNC handbook.
Yup, Obama personally went down to Honduras and started spreading rumors about you.
Fail.
Hasty generalization fallacy as well as a post hoc fallacy.
Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?
What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?
Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.
As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.
Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.
You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)
And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.
And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.
We can send them back. But they get a hearing before a judge first if they are 1) children 2) from a non-contiguous country (ie, something other than canada or mexico).
Again, you don't seem to be aware of the laws surrounding this issue. Or Obama's attempts to change them to make the deportations faster.
Yup, Obama personally went down to Honduras and started spreading rumors about you.
Really? That's all you could come up with?
Why have laws?
Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?
What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?
Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.
As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.
Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.
You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)
Under current law Obama is required to protect the border, which he obviously doesn't do, so why should anyone give a damn about the law you mention?
And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.
That's definitely true, but they sure as hell better comply with the law.
[
Many on the Left and certainly including Big Ears, believe they can pick and chose which laws to enforce and which to not.
If we had an honest media and a true two party system, along with equal and separate branches of government, adhering to the Constitution, BO would have been impeached by now.
It is evident to me, BO is following the plan laid out by Cloward and Piven, and his idol Saul Alinsky.
Perhaps you should wait and see if he actually does anything before getting outraged.
Saying and doing are two different things.
That is a cop out, Doc.
It's not.
Getting outraged about rhetoric is stupid. Only actions matter.
