Well, that about sums up how *I* feel about Holder..

As a former LEO (is there really such a thing??) I find the Attorney General contemptible...

Michale.....

This administration is truly without shame...

Michale.....

BREAKING NEWS!!!! THIS JUST IN!!!!

It's unbelievable!!!!!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sheila-jackson-lee-blames-bush-for-fast-and-furious/article/2500137

DEMOCRATS BLAME BUSH FOR FAST AND FURIOUS!!!

Who woulda thunked it....

{/sarcasm}

Michale.....

Once again, Obama's words are coming home to roost...

Michale.....

REALLY!!!?????

No one would know this by their record...

Michale.....

Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-says-president-exerted-executive-privilege-over-140250605.html;_ylt=A2KLOzLe2uFP1W0AlUTQtDMD

So much for transparency, eh??? :^/

There is only ONE REASON why Obama would exert Executive Privilege over these documents.

Because he is implicated in knowing the full story of FAST AND FURIOUS...

It's the only logical answer..

Michale.....

Attorney general asks White House to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-general-asks-white-house-to-exert-executive-privilege-over-fast-and-furious-documents/2012/06/20/gJQABd4EqV_story.html

What is Holder so afraid of???

Hope everyone is making room under the bus for Holder..

Like I said.... He'll be gone by Sep..

Michale...

If it were a crime for a News Organization to have an ideological agenda and I was the investigator, I would have enough evidence to put the NBC away for a gazillion years... :D

Michale.....

Once again, NBC edited footage to make it look like Romney said/did something that he didn't..

This is the THIRD time in a month or two that NBC has edited footage/audio to portray it was something it wasn't to further an Left Wing agenda..

One time?? Mistake...

Two times?? Coincidence..

Three times?? Intent is established..

Michale.....

BTW I actually respect your opinions and enjoy your arguments (mostly) in spite of the fact you think Bush was a good President. So I don't automatically assume anyone who doesn't loath Bush is stupid—some are just misguided.

I am actually speechless.. I had no idea..

Thank you.. Sincerely....

The Economy/Unemployment The illegals are already here. They are, presumably, already employed. Obama does nothing that would exacerbate unemployment.

I said I was "speechless"... I didn't say I was "post-less" :D

That seems to be the common theme around here...

"They are already here"...

Forgive the crudeness of the analogy, but it's the best one I could come up with and it's, not all together fair or explicitly accurate..

But it does convey the proper concept...

Most every house has cockroaches in it... Does that mean the family should lay out food for them because, after all "they are already here"...

Like I said, it sounds mean.. But consider it..

Illegals are a drain on our resources, just like cockroaches are a drain on a homeowner's resources..

Do you honestly think that all of these criminals will, by virtue of being made "legal" all of the sudden start paying taxes and being productive members of society??

Based on what?? Hope???

The "already here" argument doesn't pass the 'smell' test. Bank robbers and child molesters are "already here"... Should we legalize those as well??

Security/Law Enforcement: We haven't the resources or funds to deport 10-12 million, particularly with our current economy.

This is the "it's too hard to enforce so let's make it legal" argument. As a former LEO, this argument completely and 1000% rubs me the wrong way...

Where does it end??

Drug laws are too hard to enforce.. Let's just make drugs legal...

Illegal immigration?? Too hard to enforce. Let's just make them legal..

Bank robbers?? Ya know what? It's just TOO damn hard to catch bank robbers.. Let's make bank robberies without injuries.... Well, that law just won't be enforced...

Treason?? Damn hard to catch spies.. We'll just turn a blind eye....

Where's the concern for the welfare of children Republicans claim is so important to them?

Using this reasoning, we should bleed for ALL the children, the world over....

Besides, it's not like we're sending them to jail or sending them to Rura Penthe.... They are simply being sent to their home country...

How is that "holding them responsible"??? And we're not even talking about ACTUAL children, as there are mechanisms in place to protect the REAL children. If there isn't, then there should be.. But that has nothing to do with Obama's decree...

We are discussing (at least *I* am discussing) the 18-30 year olds. They are the biggest drain on this economy....

Socialism: There is nothing more socialist than expecting the government to get you a job by keeping other qualified workers from applying.

No one is expecting the government to get ANYONE a job... An American citizen, however, DOES have the right to expect that their government, the government that ***THEY*** pay taxes too, would not ignore the law and allow UNQUALIFIED people access to American Jobs...

Why do ya'all have such a problem with looking out for Americans first and the rest of the world after???

WHY is that such a big problem, such an EVIL concept???

We all get that you don't like President Obama and are loath to credit him with anything positive but being reduced to claiming that targeting violent offenders over nonviolent ones is unconstitutional and not appropriate prosecutorial discretion should give even you pause. Your arguments are usually better than that.

But that's not what Obama said.. If he HAD said that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I might even applaud him for it..

No.. He said we are going to IGNORE the nonviolent ones. Give them Amnesty... Period...

It's like saying "We're going to ignore the Bank Robbers that don't hurt anyone. Give them amnesty.. Because, after all, it's too hard to capture them and it's just a waste of money"...

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it...

And so what if Obama's politicking and pandering? Politicians are elected for the purpose of pandering to us its their job!

But, Obama said he wasn't that kind of politician...

Do you mean.. He LIED!???

Hmmmmm Strange.. The Left went ballistic whenever Bush "lied".. And his weren't even actually lies...

So, why does Obama get a pass??

Don't hate Obama becasue he's good at being a politician.

That's exactly why I hate Obama.. In my book a politician is slightly below a slug and slightly above a child molester....

ESPECIALLY since Obama told me that he WASN'T a politician..

THAT pissed me off.. And even though I am loathe to admit it, I will (and have) acknowledge when he does something good. It's rare so I am not put out too much..

But in THIS particular case, Obama did the wrong thing..

And, even worse, he did the WRONG thing for the WRONG reasons..

But, if you like, I'll file this away for when President Romney panders to an interest group and ya'all go frakin' ballistic.. :D

I'll simply say, ever so sweetly, "How can you hate him for pandering?? It's what politicians do, after all."

Having said all of the afore, I am still appreciative of your final comment...

I also respect your perspective and your point of view.. It does keep me on my toes.. Especially since so much of what you say is logical and rational, albeit misguided by partisan considerations and ideology... :D

But hay, it's what makes us all interesting....

Have a beer... On me... :D

Michale.....

David's had his shot so now I'll take a flyer... You've apparently settled on the impact on unemployment and the economy as the only defensible objection, or at least the most defensible one, but your so called concerns are meritless because you don't show how enforcing the law the Republican way would be better. And if we take the requirement to enforce the law as a given then its not whether Obama's action has draw-backs its whether his action has more draw-backs than the Republican way that matters.

I keep calling the Republican position stupid. Specifically this is what I mean:

The Economy/Unemployment The illegals are already here. They are, presumably, already employed. Obama does nothing that would exacerbate unemployment.

The Republican approach, deporting 10-12 million consumers, legal or not, would result in less consumer demand fewer jobs and greater unemployment.

The, "but the jobs they have now Americans don't want argument", is having your cake and eating it too. Using the law to create a class of serfs isn't immigration control, its exploitation. Obama does nothing that would exploit illegal immigrants, your brilliant solution and the Republican approach of demanding all illegals be deported before addressing immigration reform does.

The bulk of taxes paid by residents are sales and service taxes, not income taxes (since Republicans never want to raise taxes (that is never overtly raise "taxes", they're always up for higher, usage fees, "sin" taxes, licensing fees, and any other tax that can be called by another name,) illegal immigrants consume and therefore pay those taxes the same as everyone else. The fallacy that illegals are just deadbeats is simply not true.

As I've said before, just because you keep people out of the country doesn't mean you don't have to compete against them for jobs, it just means you don't get the benefit of their labors in tax support. Giving illegals Green Cards means they'd pay income taxes too. So Obama's way increases the tax base and consumer demand reducing the deficit and creating jobs. The Republican way reduces the tax base and consumer demand increasing the deficit, killing jobs, and retarding job creation.

Security/Law Enforcement: We haven't the resources or funds to deport 10-12 million, particularly with our current economy. Doing so, even if it were possible, would throw us into another economic depression—That's the Republican way. President Obama's way would not. Since doing things the Republican way is simply and demonstrably not possible Obama's way actually promotes our immigration control policy as much as possible, the Republican way does not.

Obama's way most effectively and efficiently executes the law. Deportations are up under his administration. Shifting priorities on which illegals to target first doesn't reduce the number being deported. The Republican way of wasting resources detaining anyone who looks like they might be illegal greatly wastes time and money and reduces the number of actual illegals deported.

Targeting law-breakers who knowingly broke the law instead of children who's guardians broke the law is more of a deterrent to law-breaking and far more just than targeting illegals who are themselves the victims of law-breakers. Obama's way enhances respect for, and compliance with the law. The Republican way, demonstrably, does not.

Obama's approach is actually possible, the Republican way is, again demonstrably—Not.

Family Values: Again, the children are arguably victims of the law-breakers we seek to prosecute. I, frankly, find the determination to hold them responsible for the actions of their guardians do to the desire of those guardians to improve their kid's lives by bringing them here and the determination of Republicans not to reward those law-breakers by letting their kid's lives improve here, despicable. Where's the concern for the welfare of children Republicans claim is so important to them?

Socialism: There is nothing more socialist than expecting the government to get you a job by keeping other qualified workers from applying. Whatever happened to the Tea party conviction that if you're unemployed its no ones fault but your own, touted ad nauseum to justify cutting social programs? If the poor and unemployed are just drugged-up grifters too lazy to work because "the jobs are out there" why the uproar over illegals supposedly taking Americans' jobs preventing "true" Americans from working?

Stupidity: Jobs magically exist when you want to gut saftey-net programs for the poor and disappear when you want to justify immigration crack-downs?!

Though the blatant hypocrisy and lack of any ethical or moral compass Republicans consistently demonstrate never ceases to amaze the simple fact is that people who actually believe that mutually exclusive Republican claims are indeed all true are stupid. As is basing Federal policy on the fallacy that those claims have merit.

We all get that you don't like President Obama and are loath to credit him with anything positive but being reduced to claiming that targeting violent offenders over nonviolent ones is unconstitutional and not appropriate prosecutorial discretion should give even you pause. Your arguments are usually better than that.

And so what if Obama's politicking and pandering? Politicians are elected for the purpose of pandering to us its their job! The pandering we complain about is pandering that in reality hurts us, like the republican approach to immigration, we expect our representatives to represent our interests not just do (or claim they'll do) what we think we want or have been misled to believe is best for us. Politicians who do whats demanded of them knowing it will ultimately hurt us because they're more concerned with promoting their own wealth and power than representing our interests are panderers to be deplored that isn't what President Obama's done. Don't hate Obama becasue he's good at being a politician. He's President of the United States of America presumably only good politicians need apply. We only elect politicians to the office we don't deify saints to it.

BTW I actually respect your opinions and enjoy your arguments (mostly) in spite of the fact you think Bush was a good President. So I don't automatically assume anyone who doesn't loath Bush is stupid—some are just misguided.

–Lew

That's our POTUS!!

Never met a world leader he couldn't NOT bow down too...

:^/

Michale.....

OK, let's make 2-3 million illegal immigrants legal..

Hell, let's go all the way and make ALL illegal immigrants legal...

Three stipulations..

1. They are not eligible to vote.

2. Their pay is docked at 30% ABOVE the normal taxes taken out. This will recover from these people the back taxes they owe.

3. They cannot take a job until the unemployment rate is 5% or lower

Under those conditions, I would support the making illegal immigrants legal..

Helluva idea, eh!?? I should be POTUS!! :D

Michale.....

So, no spoilers please... :D

Michale

For example, if high tech computer companies could find illegal immigrants with the necessary skills and be able to pay them less with no benefits, I think they would.

That's a pretty big if...

Of the 2-3 million illegals that will be made legal, how many do you think will have high tech skills?

A dozen?? Couple dozen??

Probably less...

I think you bring up a good point about the level of jobs currently taken by illegal immigrants. I just don't think that legalizing them would mean they would be immediately able to compete for middle class jobs.

Not immediately, no.. But surely within the year...

Is it smart to dump 2-3 million NEW workers into the work force in the middle of this crappy economy w/ unemployment so high??

Granted I don't know diddley about economics, but even *I* can see that such a move is moronic..

But you also have to understand that if they were paid better, you would start to see a positive feedback loop where they spent more. Demand would increase. And ... much of what we've talked about in previous threads ... demand stimulation ... would occur. This would mean creation of new jobs.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What illegals do now is send most, if not all, of the money they earn out of the country to relatives..

If they get higher paying jobs, they won't pay taxes. They won't put their money back into OUR economy.

They'll simply send MORE money out of the country. To help some OTHER country's economy...

No matter how you slice it, this is a bad BAD thing for American citizens..

CB,

Cool-looking aliens, but I don't know why they're firing bullets. Shouldn't they have some kind of a death ray?

Yea, the skitters are pretty unique amongst EBEs... :D

As far as a "death ray" goes, this seems to be the trend with today's sci-fi..

Even aliens as alien as the skitters have technological and hierarchical structures that are readily recognizable as having human based counterparts...

Sci Fi these days seems to mirror human standards a LOT more than past Sci Fi classics..

Take Battlestar Galactica for example..

Shit, take a way the space ships and replace them with Navy ships and you would have practically the SAME story...

I am not real sure how I feel about that.. Although the shows are enjoyable, it feels like cheating..

Like the lazy person's sci fi...

On the other hand, it DOES bring more people into the fold of sci fi. I am amazed that many of the shows that I like that are obvious sci fi shows (Fallen Skies, Continuum, Tera Nova etc etc) my wife likes as well...

It's kinda like the Star Trek reboot. Yea, it might bring more fans into the Sci Fi/Trek universe..

But is it STILL really SciFi??? Is it STILL really Trek??

That is my boggle... :D

Michale.....

I am done for the night.. :D

Michale.....

I don't know as this has anything to do with legal or illegal though.

I think it has everything to do with education and skills.

For example, if high tech computer companies could find illegal immigrants with the necessary skills and be able to pay them less with no benefits, I think they would.

Wait a second ... they do exactly that except they're not here in America. They're in India and China :)

For all we know, many illegal immigrants may be in middle class jobs already here. People w/ the available skills and education. What we hear about tends to be the lower skilled positions.

I think you bring up a good point about the level of jobs currently taken by illegal immigrants. I just don't think that legalizing them would mean they would be immediately able to compete for middle class jobs.

Down the road, perhaps. But you also have to understand that if they were paid better, you would start to see a positive feedback loop where they spent more. Demand would increase. And ... much of what we've talked about in previous threads ... demand stimulation ... would occur. This would mean creation of new jobs.

-David

Oh.. And just for the record, it's not kids that are getting the exemption..

It's anyone up to the age of 30... That's where the 2-3 million number comes from...

And that's the PRIME age group that will take jobs away from American citizens...

That's why it's so bad that Obama is dumping that many new workers into a group that is already over-stressed with workers. TENS of MILLIONS of American citizens vying for jobs that simply aren't available..

And now, Obama has dumped 2 to 3 million MORE workers into that group..

How can that be ANYTHING but bad???

Michale..

OK... That does render part (but ONLY part) of my argument moot..

However, in my defense, I *DID* state above (#46) that I wouldn't have as much problem with this issue if the 2-3 million JEEPs didn't get the right to vote..

Someone could have taken a LOT of wind out of my sails if they had said that these JEEPs won't, in fact, get the the right to vote..

But you can bet that many in the Hispanic Community are all gaa gaa over Obama, so it STILL is pandering..

But, since Obama is not pulling a Castiel, then that part of my argument is fini...

Obama's doing fine in the swing states. Look for the start of the "Electoral Math" series here, very soon now, for more details.

I think you better check your sites.. I posted a link a few days ago that showed MANY states that WEREN'T Swing States now ARE Swing States and many Swing States that were Swing States are now Romney States...

The winds of change are a blowin' and they are not the Hope/Change BS that fooled everyone in 2008...

Michale.....

Polling seems to be in a flux state these days. It's taken them years to figure out how to blend in cell-phone-only folks, which they now at least attempt to do statistically. The whole Pollster article was on minorities-weighting, and it could be another thing that takes a few years to get right, we'll see. I just find it amusing that this time it's Gallup in the hot seat, whereas before it was Rasmussen. I think people on the left or right who discount any numbers as "that's a Rep/Dem polling organization" are usually wrong -- most pollsters are more committed to thier craft than that, I think. As evidence, Rasmussen adjusting their methodology so they went from worst pollster to best in one election cycle.

Perhaps the stability in O's numbers is due to the way we've polarized politically as a nation -- to put it another way, there are simply fewer folks who are willing to give ANY politician the benefit of ANY doubt. Since they're the ones who swing back and forth, maybe even they have been set in concrete now. But that's just a guess. The stability is indeed remarkable -- I don't think any president has ever had such stable polling (have to check this).

Another factor: both committed lefties and righties pay close attention to the 24-hr news cycle, so we see these minor bumps in the road as gigantic and consequential political mountains -- but the swing voters don't pay that close attention, for the most part, and miss a lot of the tit-for-tat on the cable teevee. This is one reason why polls before, oh, late August are almost meaningless -- because so few people are actually paying close attention to the race. Again, just a guess.

Michale -

Obama's doing fine in the swing states. Look for the start of the "Electoral Math" series here, very soon now, for more details.

See my comments above to Chris1962 on polling. Something may not be wrong with the polls, something may be wrong with assuming everyone else watches cable teevee.

The "something rotten in Denmark" is, I believe, from Shakespeare's "Hamlet". [Boy, I'm going to look pretty foolish if I get that one wrong without bothering to Google it.]

As for your last comment, you are (I think) getting your DREAMs mixed up. The original bipartisan DREAM Act bill put the affected young folks "on a path to citizenship." That path, mind you, is likely at least 3-5 years long, from my knowledge of immigration. It could even be longer -- a LOT longer.

This bill failed, when the Republican co-sponsors in the Senate (Hatch? I forget the names) voted against it. It did get 55 votes, but not enough to defeat a filibuster.

What Rubio proposed doing (without actually writing a bill, because he was politically too chicken to do so) was to change the idea. Instead of a "path to citizenship" the only thing they'd be given would be legal residence and work permit. In other words, Republicans were fine with the basic idea, as long as none of these kids ever got the chance to vote in an American election. Ever.

This is precisely what Obama did. Except Obama isn't even offering legal residency, just not getting deported. And work papers. But no hope of citizenship at all. And it only affects 800,000-1,000,000, don't know where you're getting your figures from.

Oh, the other change was that in the original DREAM Act, I think you had to either go into the military or college, whereas in Rubio's non-existent plan and Obama's action, high school graduation or a GED is all that is required.

But nobody's getting any sort of automatic citizenship whatsoever. Even if there were, it wouldn't happen for years and years. So take a deep breath, sit down, and realize that the right wing has been lying to you.

Heh. Couldn't resist that last one.

:-)

-CW

Is there ANY evidence that would indicate that the 2-3 million illegals that Obama has just made legal would NOT be allowed to vote??

I have read that these new legal workers will be handed voter registration forms along with their other paperwork. Of course that was likely facetious, but still.....

If there is any indications that these new workers will NOT be allowed to vote, then one of my major beefs is rendered moot..

Of course, there is STILL the issue of dumping 2-3 million workers into a pool that is already overflowing with workers. That IS still an issue that will cost Obama Independent/NPA votes...

But if these JEEPs can't vote, then the impact might not be as bad as I thought.

Sure, it's pandering to the existing Latino community and that is surely worthy of scorn...

But if Obama is not pulling a Castiel, then I would have less of a problem with it..

Michale.....

The numbers feel "off," or inconsistent in that no matter what Obama does or says, his numbers don't seem to reflect it, positively or negatively.

I was saying the same thing a few days ago..

If, after ALL the negative crap of the last couple weeks, Obama's numbers don't plummet, then there is SOMETHING inherently wrong with the Polls...

Not that I have ever had much faith in polls to begin with..

Sure, the POLL of POLLs has a bit more credibility, due to the sheer number and diversity of the polling range..

But if THAT poll doesn't move, after all that has happened??

Then something surely is rotten in Denmark...

As an aside, anyone know where that saying, "Something is rotten in Denmark" came from??? :D

Michale.....

Totally agree with that.

Thanks, C. That WAS a long article. I heard Chris Matthews make a comment a week or so ago about polling, in general, these days. He said he didn't trust them; that something was weird about this election cycle. I've been thinking the same, myself. The numbers feel "off," or inconsistent in that no matter what Obama does or says, his numbers don't seem to reflect it, positively or negatively. They just basically stay the same. We've talked about this.

Strange but interesting question: Do you think "political correctness" may be playing a role, re: respondents' answers? I'm not sure pollsters are getter true-blue answers. Has that thought crossed your mind?

Let me put it another way..

Do you think there is even a REMOTE possibility that you could accept a logical and intelligent argument from a person who thought Bush was a pretty good president and NOT think of them as "stupid"???

Or is your idea of "disagreeing" with someone who is NOT stupid consists of disagreeing as to whether Bush is an idiot or a moron??

:D

Michale.....

You misunderstand me. Its not that I think anyone who doesn't agree with me is not worth considering, its that basing Federal policy on how the stupid people think the world works is what is known as The Bush Years.

The problem is your definition of "stupid people" appears to be anyone who disagrees with you...

I never try to be a great liberal.--I just try to do the right thing and--it just happens!

"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. And let history make it's own judgement."
-Zefram Cochrane, April, 2044

:D

Michale.....

Your example works for farm work and low end jobs..

Those are the jobs that illegal immigrants take and look for..

NOW....

Now, 2-3 million previously illegal workers will be able to look for jobs that middle class Americans normally fill...

There is now more competition in middle class jobs that aren't prevalent enough for the existing workforce... How can adding 2-3 million ***NEW*** workers into the workforce be ANYTHING but a catastrophe???

p.s. I like your MicLe character. Does he really begin sentences with "'Yo dickhead ..."?

Get a few beers in me.... er... him and he'll say all sorts of crazy shit.. :D

You can bet that if NRN ever comes to Florida, there will be some crazy CRAZY times! :D

Michale....

[Editor's Note: I seem to be in a within-the-comment editing mood today. For new readers to the site, Michale's last line was a positive one -- as in the Steve Martinesque "wild and crazy" usage. Michale, here, is predicting the vast quantities of beer that would no doubt be consumed should Netroots ever go to Florida... heh... -CW]

You misunderstand me. Its not that I think anyone who doesn't agree with me is not worth considering, its that basing Federal policy on how the stupid people think the world works is what is known as The Bush Years.

But thanks anyway for the compliment. I never try to be a great liberal.--I just try to do the right thing and--it just happens!

Let's say an employer needs 10 people for their business.

The employer looks at the market and says, wow, I can get a great deal if I can fill as many of these positions as possible with illegal immigrants.

I don't have to pay them benefits and they will work for practically nothing.

This employer if acting purely according to the market (not all do, but many will look only at the bottom line) will fill as many of these positions as possible with illegal immigrants.

Let's say the employer hires 4 Americans and 6 illegal immigrants. The employer would hire all illegal immigrants except that he/she can't fill all available skills from the illegal immigrant pool.

Some of the positions may require education or skills that are more available from the American labor force.

Once you eliminate the advantage that illegals have (no benefits/less pay), equivalently skilled American workers are suddenly on even footing.

Employers don't have the incentive (less pay & no benefits) to choose illegals.

What is being eliminated is the incentive to employers to hire illegally.

-David

Seriously, though..

I would dispute this..

Yea, sure.. One poll here, one poll there might be explained by ignorant electorate...

But poll after poll after poll after poll after poll??

Naw. The cross-section is too large for ignorance to be the sole cause..

These many polls are saying something..

Ya'all just don't like what they are saying..

Apparently, neither does President Obama..

Hence, the desperation....

Michale.....

addendum: a fairly ignorant species, myself and all present company included.

meet the new boss, same as the old boss
~pete townshend

How's Egypt working out???

Seems we have the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of the country in conjunction with the military.

If only we had someone here. Someone knowledgeable enough to predict that Egypt would go the way of Iran... Someone prescient about things.

Wonder if such a person exists.. :D

Michale.....

Funny....

That reason wasn't mentioned when the whole of the electorate (myself included) got down to their knees and thanked the gods for Obama...

Back then, we were applauded the world over for being enlightened... :D

What a difference 4 years make.. :D

Michale....

that's a completely unfair comparison! kermit the frog would be the best president since ike, if not lincoln himself.

I stand corrected.. :D

Michale.....

the most likely reason is that polls are based on responses from human beings, who have on the whole been known to be a fairly ignorant species. if that weren't the case, president The Frog would be promoting his legislative agenda as we speak.

"Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
~Sherlock

Now I know how frustrated ya'all get when I put words in YOUR mouths. :D

I never claimed that it WILL happen. I have said that it LIKELY will happen and I (for one) will enjoy the spectacle of ya'all acting EXACTLY as I predicted ya'all will act.. :D

Ahem ... the precedent of the expansion of the executive branch was set by President Bush. President Obama has actually reverted to previous precedent of not abusing the executive branch.

As I have well established (without any successful refutation, I might add) there is absolutely NO precedence set whereas a previous president ignored the law to create new voters..

I doubt you will find ANYONE in this country, aside from the kool-aid drinkers, who will say that Obama has not expanded the executive branch and ignored the checks and balances inherent in our Republic...

These people are already here.

Not legally. As such they cannot compete with the middle class for jobs..

NOW, because of Obama, they can..

HOW is that "good" for Americans?? NO ONE has been able to explain that...

Did we mention these people are already here?

Did I mention that simply being here does not legal workers them make??

Are you deliberately ignoring this fact because you don't have a response??

Or do you not understand the difference between "being" here and being here LEGALLY???

These people are already here. In our country. The United States of America. This means they're already in our workforce. They compete because they get paid illegal immigrant wages with no benefits. Legitimize this and it is better for the American workforce.

HOW!!???

For the love of the gods, tell me HOW it is better for the workforce that has tens of millions MORE workers than there are jobs and Obama just adds 2-3 million MORE workers that COULD NOT compete for those jobs before Obama broke the law??!!???

HOW could that POSSIBLY be BETTER!!???

Let me restate the problem, because apparently we have a failure to communicate...

Gonna have to get creative here...

ONCE UPON A TIME...

There was a community. In this community, there are 10,000 legal workers looking for jobs. Let's call them "MidClas".. You also had 4,000 illegal workers in this community.. We'll call them "IlIms".

Now, the MidClas workers work at MidClas jobs.. The IlIm workers work at IlIm jobs. MidClas workers don't work in IlIm jobs and IlIms don't work at MidClas jobs...

There are enough IlIms to fill all the IlIm jobs..

But there are only 1000 MidClas jobs and 10,000 MidClas are vying for those jobs...

Now, in comes a great savior. We'll call him PresOb.. PresOb comes to the community with great apolmb and fanfare and claims, "I AM THE SAVIOR. I AM THE ANSWER. I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA."

OK, so MidClas people don't know what all that crap means. But they say, "Hay.. If PresOb says he can make us jobs, then hell, let's swear allegience to PresOb..."

So, the MidClas swear allegience to PresOb...

PresOb waives his magic wand and....

VIOLA!!!!!!

IlIms are NOW able to apply in MidClas jobs!

PresOb is very pleased with himself and says, "There... NOW everything is better..."

MidClas people are dumbfounded.. Some guy (let's call him MicLe) walks up to PresOb and says,

"Yo... Dickhead?? HOW are things 'better'?? We had 10,000 workers competing for 1000 jobs. You just made it so now we have FOURTEEN THOUSAND workers competing for the SAME FRAKING 1000 jobs!!! On WHAT fraking planet would THIS be considered 'better'!!???"

And everyone lived miserably ever after...

THE END

Does it make a bit more sense now??

It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that, by adding 2-3 million MORE workers into a workforce that they were not part of before, a workforce that ALREADY exceeds the number of jobs by tens of millions....

It's IMPOSSIBLE that such an act could be construed as "good" by ANY stretch of the definition.....

(BTW- it's really hilarious that you cited Bush's own testimony as evidence of his having the country's best interests at heart . What do you think Bush is going to say about his decisions? Of course he thought he was doing what's right. Just as we all do. Including Obama.)

Yer right. Both President Bush and President Obama will claim that the exampled actions were "right"...

Funny thing though..

The FACTS support Bush's claim..

The FACTS don't support Obama's claim, as I have proven beyond any doubt..

Michale.....

that's a completely unfair comparison! kermit the frog would be the best president since ike, if not lincoln himself.

http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/15/10699381-stephen-colbert-gets-kermit-the-frog-to-leap-on-the-gop-primaries?lite

why? because i'm an amphibian-american! do we all look alike to you?
~KTF

There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest or even intimate that Romney would be worse than Obama..

Frankly, Kermit The Frog would likely not be worse than Obama...

Ya'all gotta ask yourselves one question..

Well, I wish ya'all would ask yourselves a lot more questions, this one is probably the best one to ask..

If Romney is so bad for this country, why do polls show consistently that Obama and Romney are neck and neck with Romney actually GAINING ground in Swing states??

I mean, according to ya'all, Obama is the Great Hope, the Savior Of Us All... Shouldn't he be wiping the floor with Romney???

Hell, he shouldn't even have to CAMPAIGN because, after all, he is the annointed one who cannot be dared questioned by anyone, least he runs away!!

So, why isn't Obama's popularity off the charts and why hasn't the speck of a man, this ignorant and shameless challenger been sent packing!??

Is it because those of us who actually DECIDE these elections realize that, while Romney may be bad, Obama is much MUCH worse??

Could that possibly be the case??

It certainly fits the facts...

Michale...

1. "All the precedences that Obama has set will be used by that GOP President." - Michale

Ahem ... the precedent of the expansion of the executive branch was set by President Bush. President Obama has actually reverted to previous precedent of not abusing the executive branch.

2. "President Bush had Congressional Authorization (Including Democrats!!) for every action he took." - Michale

Ummm ... no

3. "HOW could it possibly be GOOD for this country to add 2-3 million people to a work force that hasn't been able to sustain AMERICANS since Obama took office?" - Michale

These people are already here.

4. "Can't you see how much worse things are going to be for that middle class?" - Michale

These people are already here. Only now maybe they can pay taxes and compete fairly with American workers.

5. "WHY is Obama creating Workers, but not Work!" - Michale

Did we mention these people are already here?

6. "I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how dumping 2-3 million new workers into an already over stressed work force benefits anyone but Obama?" - Michale

These people are already here. In our country. The United States of America. This means they're already in our workforce. They compete because they get paid illegal immigrant wages with no benefits. Legitimize this and it is better for the American workforce.

What's left at the end of this is "I don't like Obama" which is perfectly ok. It's just interesting that you're able to apply one set of criteria to one politician and a completely different set to another.

Bush had the best interest of the country at heart and somehow Obama doesn't because ... well, you (and he) say so (BTW- it's really hilarious that you cited Bush's own testimony as evidence of his having the country's best interests at heart . What do you think Bush is going to say about his decisions? Of course he thought he was doing what's right. Just as we all do. Including Obama.)

-David

By definition, these people are criminals..

What makes you think that, just because they are LEGAL now, that they are going to start being law-abiding???

Michale.....

or WORSE! (or not, heck if i know.)

but apparently political payback was more important than either. ask valerie plame wilson about the bush administration's national security priorities.

but that's neither here nor there. obama isn't unilaterally changing people's legal status, he's changing enforcement policy, which is well within the power of the executive branch (just as commuting scooter libby's sentence was well within the power of the executive branch). one might well argue that both actions tend to violate the spirit of the law, but as far as the letter of the law goes, there's nothing improper with an executive deciding to prioritize statutes as he sees fit.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how dumping 2-3 million new workers into an already over stressed work force benefits anyone but Obama??

BTW- Your argument has changed about a dozen times during these comments.

For example....????

This is indicative of someone who has made up their mind a priori of any facts and then searches for arguments to justify a predetermined position.

Or it could be indicative of someone who has acquired new facts that add to the perverse nature of the act..

You say Potato and I say Eskimo... :D

We know. That's what we keep saying.

And most of ya'all (not you) keep trying to attribute it to partisan ship.

It has nothing to do with Right or Left and has everything to do with Obama being a liar, a coward and a politician. And a liar.. Did I mention that?? :D

Romney wants to return to these same policies.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

I'm sure he's a very agreeable guy, but his policies are a complete return to everything which failed.

As opposed to Obama's policies which have been such a resounding success, eh?? :D

We don't KNOW how President Romney will do..

We DO know how BAD President Obama has done...

In this case, the Devil we DON'T know simply HAS to be better than the Devil we DO know..

Michale.....

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

They say no CrapCare ruling today and, it appears that SCOTUS only hands down their rulings on Mondays.

If true, we have another week to go. :(

Michale.....

[Editor's note: changed "now CrapCare" to "no Crapcare" as I think that's what Michale was trying to say, here. --CW]

It's how you're determining "benefit" ...

It sure looks like you're saying "what I believe = benefits the country" anything else doesn't.

BTW- Your argument has changed about a dozen times during these comments. This is indicative of someone who has made up their mind a priori of any facts and then searches for arguments to justify a predetermined position.

I don't like Obama as a person.

We know. That's what we keep saying.

I guess the only difference is you (I am assuming) don't like Bush as a politician.

I disagreed with what Bush did.

What I'm saying is whether or not I like or dislike him doesn't matter. I can separate this from what he did.

He took us into Iraq for all the wrong reasons. He wiretapped America, without telling anyone. He took his eye off the economy. He bailed out the banks to the tune of $700 billion plus. He very rarely made good decisions.

All of his policies were focused on helping out large corporate special interests, not people.

Romney wants to return to these same policies.

I'm sure he's a very agreeable guy, but his policies are a complete return to everything which failed.

-David

It's funny iddn't it?? :D

Your reaction to Bush is exactly like my reaction to Obama. :D

I guess the only difference is you (I am assuming) don't like Bush as a politician.

I don't like Obama as a person.

Michale....

This is also ridiculous. Why? Because the competitive edge that illegal immigrants enjoy is that companies can pay them next to nothing with no benefits.

Exactly!! You prove my point for me..

Up to now, the illegals have been relegated to menial jobs that the middle class doesn't want..

But NOW.....

Now that they are legal, they can compete with the middle class for THOSE kinds of jobs..

THAT's the whole problem. Obama has dumped 2-3 million NEW workers in an area that has a huge HUGE surplus of workers already!!

There is absolutely NO LOGIC to this...

And THAT is somehow GOOD for this country??

Please.. Someone. ANYONE.. Explain how this could possibly be???

And for the record, just a quick reminder about George W. Bush, who only had the country's best interests in mind ... (*choke* *gag* I think I just threw up a little in my mouth) and never did anything for political reasons ...

I never claimed that Bush "never" did anything for political reasons.

But the examples that *YA'ALL* gave of Bush's actions were not done for political reasons.

How could they be, when they cost Bush so much, political speaking???

You're missing the point. You're trying to say that somehow one politician is better than another politician. That somehow everything Bush did was for the benefit of the country and that he never did anything for political reasons. And Obama is the opposite.

Again, I never said that EVERYTHING Bush did was for the benefit of the country.

I simply pointed out that, with the examples that YOU and CW gave me, THOSE were done for the benefit of the country with no political considerations whatsoever..

In the PATH TO 9/11, "Bush" said in the aftermath of the attacks, "Politics will NOT be discussed whatsoever" or words to that effect..

Now, whether that is true or not, I don't know. It sounds like something a writer would insert, for dramatic effect.

BUT... But the fact is, I can SEE Bush saying that...

It's also factual that I simply can NOT see Obama saying something even CLOSE to that...

As far as missing the point, YOU are missing MY point..

If Obama's actions were done to actually BENEFIT the country, I would accept that.. Even if they were wrong...

WHY someone does something is almost as important as WHAT they do..

So, if someone does the WRONG thing, but for the RIGHT reasons, that is a point in their favor...

But the simple fact is Obama did the WRONG thing for the WRONG reason...

Obama, in essence, spit in the face of every LEGAL immigrant in this country and said, "Fuck the American People and their representatives, Fuck the middle class and Fuck the unemployed! *I* need the votes!!!!"

They're both politicians. They both believe/believed they are doing what's best for the country. They also both do/did things to get re-elected.

Yes, they are BOTH politicians. Yet, not ALL of their acts are political...

"Is a man better than the worst thing he has ever done?"
-Michale

I am sure that there are some acts that Obama has done that were NOT political, that didn't garner him ANY political clout, that he did solely and completely because they were the right thing to do.. PERIOD

I can't think of one, but I am sure there is one or two out there..

But, we know for a FACT that Bush did MANY things in the aftermath of 9/11 that cost him politically. Almost cost him re-election.

But he did those things because it what was best for the country...

Despite the fact that his base hates this, Mitt doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Now Mitt came out w/ some mild (read "half ass") critique but it's very likely he would have pushed for something similar.

I have no doubt that Romney WILL push for something similar..

But we're not talking about "pushing" for something.

We're talking about UNILATERALLY and WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY whatsoever, declaring it...

We're not talking about going thru Congress to create a new law or alter an existing law..

We're talking about BEING the law...

Ya'all would have had a conniption fit if Bush had ordered his DOJ not to prosecute corporations for anti-trust violations in order to secure re-election..

Com'on.. You know THAT it's true. :D

Obama did the exact same thing for the EXACT same reason..

Michale.....

One last point. You argued that somehow this will hurt the middle class.

This is also ridiculous. Why? Because the competitive edge that illegal immigrants enjoy is that companies can pay them next to nothing with no benefits.

By bringing them into the fold ... this advantage goes away.

And ... guess what? They start paying taxes! Suddenly they are paying into the system which before they were just using.

And for the record, just a quick reminder about George W. Bush, who only had the country's best interests in mind ... (*choke* *gag* I think I just threw up a little in my mouth) and never did anything for political reasons ...

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/bushmission2.jpg

1. Does anyone here HONESTLY and TRULY believe that Obama took this action for altruistic, compassionate and humanitarian means?

You're missing the point. You're trying to say that somehow one politician is better than another politician. That somehow everything Bush did was for the benefit of the country and that he never did anything for political reasons. And Obama is the opposite.

Where do you get off claiming that only you know what's best for the country?

Quit being so elitist!!!

They're both politicians. They both believe/believed they are doing what's best for the country. They also both do/did things to get re-elected.

2. Would ya'alls reaction to this action of Bush's be the same as it is to Obama's?

I believe we actually gave Bush credit for pushing to pass the DREAM act. Even though it never happened.

And guess who also has no problem with what Obama did ... Mitt

Despite the fact that his base hates this, Mitt doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Now Mitt came out w/ some mild (read "half ass") critique but it's very likely he would have pushed for something similar.

-David

And if I haven't worn ya'all out.. :D

I would like an answer to THIS question..

How EXACTLY could this possibly be "good" for Americans??

Now, if you want to lay out the "silicon valley/genius" supposition, then you have to allow the "psychotic serial killer" supposition. For one is as logical and possible as the other... For every type of BEST CASE scenario, I could come up with an equally plausible WORST CASE scenario..

So, let's just stick to just logical and rational extrapolations of how dumping 2-3 million new workers in an already over-stressed and ready to implode work force could possibly be GOOD for Americans??

Michale.....

Bush did not do what he did for the purpose of securing more votes.

In fact, what Bush did actually COST him, both in votes and in popularity...

But President Bush felt that securing the country was more important than securing votes..

Obama, on the other hand, wants to secure votes. He is DESPERATE to secure votes.. And he'll do what he thinks is best to secure those votes, without ANY other consideration..

Even if he has to screw over every American citizen to do it...

It's apparent..

If it's a choice between getting more votes or helping the middle class, Obama (and apparently the Left) is going to throw the middle class under the bus....

What does Obama care... The middle class "is doing fine".... :^/

Michale.....

:D

Michale.....

Well, you know what? We've waited long enough. Congress is not going to act. If they had the slightest inclination to act, they would have done so before now.

Ahem...

Congress DID "act" on the DREAM legislation..

It was voted on, on THREE DIFFERENT occasions..

And it was voted DOWN *EACH AND EVERY TIME*...

So, the claim that Congress hadn't acted on the DREAM legislation is nothing more than partisan bullshit...

Congress DID act..

Obama just didn't like the result..

So he supplanted his OWN judgement, thereby thwarting the will of the people thru their elected representatives.

And he did so for the purist pandering reason in the history of this country...

He did it to create new voters.

No amount of spin will change that these facts.

Michale.....

We get it, Michale ... this is a religious battle for you.

As such, I see very little point in discussing further. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

While it may take a while (at least a year) you will come to learn that I am right...

When ya'all start pounding President Romney for all the things that you pounded Bush over, but ignored for Obama, ya'all will look back and say...

"Sum beach!! Michale was right!!"

:D

CW,

RE:(76)

Everything you referred to is covered under the AUMF...

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines..."

Now, is torturing terrorist for intel "necessary" and "appropriate"??

Apparently Presidents Bush and Obama thought/think so.

I agree. Probably the only area of agreement between myself and Obama.. :D

Everyone who commented, above, on this article could sit down as a group, have a few beers, have a few laughs, tease each other about the other side's idiocy, and be great friends at the end of the evening.

Anyone? Think that's a fair statement? I'd put heavy Quatloos on that one, personally.

Truer words were never spoken.. :D

(1) These people are here already. They are already (like it or not) in the labor market. Would you rather have a Latino genius kid be able to get a job in Silicon Valley, or force him to work under the table picking strawberries? Which do you think is better for America?

Since this is heavy on the supposition, let me propose an alternate one..

You have some 29yr old psychopath serial killer with a couple misdemeanor crimes who, under the LAW, if captured would be deported.

Under Obama's amnesty, the red carpet is rolled out for him..

He ends up killing 20 kids across 4 states...

Which is better for America???

For the record, my supposition is just as valid as your supposition... :D

No Silicon Valley conglomerate has EVER been started by an illegal immigrant...

That "never had to ban a SINGLE commenter" above should really read: "... even Michale, although he does try my patience quite regularly..."

Heh. Michale, that one was for you. Heh heh.

Danke... :D

What irks you most is the fact that it is going to be so effective at what you're decrying -- turning out the Latino vote.

Current polling shows Latinos swinging towards Romney.

That's why Obama pulled this stunt now...

Oh, and what exactly did he fire all those US Attorneys for?

Probably for the same reason Obama fired all those US Attorneys.

Please show me where Congress approved of breaking laws and treaties they had passed on torture. Don't waste too much time, it doesn't exist.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines..."

Now, is torturing terrorist for intel "necessary" and "appropriate"??

Apparently Presidents Bush and Obama thought/think so.

I agree. Probably the only area of agreement between myself and Obama.. :D

These people are ALREADY HERE. They weren't "created" by Obama, they're ALREADY HERE.

But they are not LEGALLY allowed to compete with American citizens for employment.

NOW they are, thanx to Obama..

Again, the question must be asked.. (Thanx Fisher :D)

WHY is Obama creating Workers, but not Work!??

Bush told his Justice Department (and everyone else involved) to IGNORE the wiretapping laws on the books --

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh, thanks for the text. Please cite the section which says that this AUMF overturns the Bill of Rights (4th Amendment) or the FISA law or the wiretapping laws which are on the books.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines..."

Now, is wiretapping for intel "necessary" and "appropriate"??

Apparently Presidents Bush and Obama thought/think so.

I agree. Probably the only area of agreement between myself and Obama.. :D

As David indicated, there is unlikely any possibility of agreement on this issue..

But, I would like to see if I could get TWO questions answered that have been ignored..

1. Does anyone here HONESTLY and TRULY believe that Obama took this action for altruistic, compassionate and humanitarian means??

This next one is going to be a bit more involved as I want to make it an EXACT analogous situation.

For days and weeks, President Bush's 2004 campaign has been in trouble. Daily reports of how Kerry is totally dominating Bush on fund raising. Bush is getting pummeled because he can't raise money..

One day, President Bush goes to the Rose Garden and announces that he is is using prosecutorial discretion and has instructed his DOJ not to prosecute corporations for anti-trust violations. It's obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that Bush is hoping that he will reap a financial/donation whirlwind by this action..

2. Would ya'alls reaction to this action of Bush's be the same as it is to Obama's??

Be honest...

Finally, let me finish up with this..

Obama's Harvard law professor says 'President MUST be defeated in 2012' (even though he's the man Barack used to have on speed dial)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160715/Obamas-Harvard-law-professor-Roberto-Unger-says-defeated-2012.html#ixzz1y8amRBzv

Here's a man who has drunk more Obama kool-aid than all of ya'all put together.

This is a man who knows Obama better than ANYONE else, except maybe Michelle...

And HE is saying that Obama must be defeated..

If ya'all look at things objectively, you simply CANNOT ignore the facts...

Things are going really bad for Obama.. He has been pummeled from the Right, pummeled from the Left and pummeled from the Center. His campaign donations are being outclassed by Romney 10-1. Every attack he has made against Romney falls flat and is repudiated by DEMOCRATS.

And, it's only going to get worse..

How can ANYONE view this act as ANYTHING other than desperation??

The funny thing is, these are the kinds of desperate acts that one usually sees in Sep or Oct...

Not in MAY and JUNE!!!

Obama is going to crash and burn..

It's only a matter of time..

Remember, you heard it hear first. :D

Michale.....

Oh, thanks for the text. Please cite the section which says that this AUMF overturns the Bill of Rights (4th Amendment) or the FISA law or the wiretapping laws which are on the books.

What's that? There are no sections which state any of that?

Well, facts are tricky things, aren't they?

And here I thought you revered the Constitution so much...

heh.

-CW

Actually, the FISA laws and the wiretapping laws -- laws ON THE BOOKS -- were ignored by the Bush administration. The AUMF simply does not apply to United States citizens, and never has. Bush told his Justice Department (and everyone else involved) to IGNORE the wiretapping laws on the books -- which is precisely what you are accusing Obama of doing now.

Man, if this is all the arguments Republicans have got, I just keep thinking to myself how brilliant this move by Obama truly is.

Has anyone heard a single Republican attacking the idea as "amnesty" or doing their usual nativist firebreathing? They seem to be reduced to making some sort of "process" argument. And "process" arguments never sway voters, for the most part.

-CW

How, exactly, is Obama "creating" workers? You're the one who seems to have the God complex when it comes to Obama. Did he create them out of the dust? Or the clay?

These people are ALREADY HERE. They weren't "created" by Obama, they're ALREADY HERE.

How is what Obama did "creating voters" when it doesn't lead to a path to citizenship? Please explain that one, also, but using only facts and not wild suppositions about future legislation.

-CW

You are just making this too easy, friend.

President Bush had Congressional Authorization (Including Democrats!!) for every action he took.

Please show me where Congress approved of breaking laws and treaties they had passed on torture. Don't waste too much time, it doesn't exist.

Please show me where Congress approved of the Executive Branch refusing subpoenas from Congress. Bush SPAT IN CONGRESS' FACE on this one.

The entire concept of a "signing statement" is, once again, a big honkin' loogie in the face to Congress -- by definition. The president says "I will follow this law, but only pages 3-5 of it." Where, exactly, is that covered in the Constitution? Again, don't spend too much time on it.

Congress passes a law. Bush spits in the face of the law. How is that "authorization" in any way, shape, or form?

-CW

BWAH hah hah hah HAH!

Seriously, you kill me. You were making sense, precisely up to this point.

"He's the King... Dubya The First..."

If you were going for irony, you have achieved it hands-down. If you were trying to make a serious argument, man, you can do better than this. It is nakedly showing what you're complaining about in others: "when the president is OUR GUY, everything he does is right"...

I'm still wiping my eyes from the tears of laughter this one engendered...

-CW

Signing statements (please point to where the Constitution allows for such...).

Ignoring congressional subpoenas.

Authorizing and refusing to even consider prosecuting torture.

Oh, and what exactly did he fire all those US Attorneys for? Wasn't that a pretty big stink? Talk about interfering with the course of justice....

And that's just for starters, off the top of my head. We could go back to Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre, if you'd really like to dig into history...

:-)

-CW

Oooo! Signing statements! I had forgotten about those... talk about extra-constitutional!

Nice Cheney dig, too, I have to say.

:-)

-CW

There's an article over at HuffPost (LONG article) that you're going to want to read, by Mark Blumenthal. Look under their "Pollster" heading.

It's about how Gallup numbers are (this election cycle) off, skewed towards Republicans. This was a complaint a while back on Rasmussen (2008? I think), and was valid. Rasmussen seemed to take the criticism to heart, and their polling has been better ever since. We'll see whether Gallup follows suit or not, possibly after this election cycle is over.

Anyway, it's an article you'll love. Check it out. I'll search out the link if you can't find it.

-CW

What irks you most is the fact that it is going to be so effective at what you're decrying -- turning out the Latino vote.

Guesses as to what the Latino vote split will be in November? Dubya hit the high mark of around 40%. I think Romney will be lucky to get 25%.

:-)

-CW

Heh. Michale, that one was for you. Heh heh.

-CW

I refuse to accept your apology, for the simple reason that no apology is necessary.

I really need to make it more obvious on the site that first-time comments are held for moderation, but I wasn't lying when I said "consider yourself lucky." Some folks comment on a Friday night and I don't approve them until Sunday afternoon. I'm just one guy, and I'm not at this site 24/7. But, having said that, I get just as annoyed when I comment on someone else's site and it seems to disappear into nothingness. So no apology is necessary at all.

Since you're in a good mood and all, here are some tips: our commenting policy, a few tricks and "how-tos" about commenting itself, and one further piece of advice I don't think I included anywhere -- I know the comments aren't "threaded" here (indented), so we keep track by referencing the comment number. Thus I added a [48] at the top of this comment, to signify I'm answering your comment, number 48, above. Makes for easier discussions. Just a sort of quirk of the site, FYI.

This is a unique site (some might say "bizarre" but we ignore them, for the most part). It is not exactly an echo chamber. There are lots of Lefties, lots of Righties, lots of folks in the middle, and lots of folks who just read everything and never comment.

[To this last group, I would just say: "Start writing comments! It's fun! Try it! Jump on in, the water's fine!"]

Over at HuffPost, which I use to suck in readers to this site, I like to say "I don't get the most comments here, but I sure do get the most intelligent ones," but as you can quickly spot, this is just part of the sucking-up process to entice them over here. Ahem.

But while free-spirited, the commenting here is unbelievably (to me) high-level. This may be hard for you to believe, but I would be fairly certain of the following statement: Everyone who commented, above, on this article could sit down as a group, have a few beers, have a few laughs, tease each other about the other side's idiocy, and be great friends at the end of the evening.

Anyone? Think that's a fair statement? I'd put heavy Quatloos on that one, personally.

While the site has been active for over five years now, and while I have had to send a few warning emails to commenters now and then (right and left), I have NEVER had to ban a SINGLE commenter from this site. This perfect record is admirable, I think, but the admiration is from me for you guys... not egotism. We rip each other's thinking apart here, but we almost never hit below the belt.

So having said all of that by way of introduction, allow me to answer the points you raised.

(1) These people are here already. They are already (like it or not) in the labor market. Would you rather have a Latino genius kid be able to get a job in Silicon Valley, or force him to work under the table picking strawberries? Which do you think is better for America?

(1a) Some of these people are (or want to be) in the uniform of the United States military. If they were all deported, who would take their place? Would you really begrudge a kid who lost a leg fighting for America a legal way to work here?

(2) That is a fair criticism, and one I (glancingly) made in the article. Was Obama's move a political one? Heck yeah. Will it help him win the Latino vote? Smart money says "heck yeah." It the whole thing a crass political exercise? Well, not entirely. You are correct -- Obama could have done this awhile back. But if he had done so, wouldn't you still have complained (albeit on different points, perhaps)? Rubio's never going to write a bill -- he's made that obvious. Congress is never going to act, even if Rubio does produce a bill. Obama might be voted out of office. So if not now, when?

(2b) Republicans (not sure that includes you, just a general statement, mind you) have made immigration a distracting wedge issue in American politics for decades. The recent cycle began with Pete Wilson in California (Prop 187? Prop 197? Something like that), where he ran a "Willie Horton" type ad back in the 1990s. Since that point, the GOP has used the issue as demonization, right up to the present day. That chicken is now coming home to roost. I actually applauded George W. Bush (it may have been the only time I did, at least that springs to mind) when he tackled the issue. The bill that went up before Congress was pathetic as an overall fix, but it was at least a big step in the right direction, coming from a Republican. Bush was brave to push it, and while I disagreed with roughly the other 99% of what he did as president, I thought he deserved credit for at least making the attempt -- before his own party in Congress killed the idea.

Immigration is a distraction for some, in America. For others, it is a "real issue." Republicans have yet to fully appreciate that lesson.

Side note (full disclosure): I am married to a US Citizen who was born a citizen of another country. I can tell you all sorts of stories about the INS. Just to lay that card on the table (search this site for "INS" and you'll see a few choice things I've had to say).

(3) Lots of presidents do lots of "end arounds" on Congress. We haven't had an actual, Constitutional declaration of war since World War II. Does that make every war since then the act of a tyrant? The Constitution is very vague on the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has only occasionally made things clearer. Was Bush acting illegally when he refused to let his aides answer a congressional subpoena? Both parties play this game, and this tug of war looks mighty different to various members of both parties, depending on which end of Pennsylvania Avenue they happen to be looking from -- and whether they're the "ins" or the "outs" at the time.

Presidential power is what you can get away with -- blunt, but true to a large extent. Google "Bush unitary executive" to see the Left howling about it while Dubya was president. Clinton and Obama have been attacked for it as well, although that particular phrase wasn't used. Co-equal branches of government produce an eternal tug-of-war, not a nice "balance" the way we were taught in school.

Legally, Obama is using prosecutorial discretion. It's a valid executive power. Speeding your car is illegal. If we told all our traffic cops to make cracking down on speeding the number one priority, don't you think a lot of other (and worse) traffic crimes would increase as a result? That's "discretion." Or allocation of resources.

You call it arrogant. Fair enough. I call it leadership -- unlike the poor excuse shown by Rubio, who couldn't even be bothered to write a bill in six months' time...

-CW

OK, I've only gotten down to about [47] but I have a point to make.

What would you say if a president ignored US law and international law entirely, and refused to even consider prosecuting anyone for breaking it before, during, or after the fact?

Second question (upping the ante, as it were). What would you say if two different presidents -- from different parties -- both ignored the same laws, and publicly stated they weren't even going to attempt to prosecute any violations?

Zinger (you just knew there'd be one): the United States broke laws forbidding torture. Dubya and Obama both ignored this completely. Did you denounce their actions, or support them?

Be honest, now.

-CW

I wish I had a small fraction of the patience you have demonstrated in this endlessly frustrating yet infinitely amusing thread.

:-)

As such, I see very little point in discussing further. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

-David

Honestly....

What GOOD for Americans could come from this??

Michale.....

Just in case it's been forgotten..

Now, if you will..

Please show me the Authorization from Congress that allows President Obama to ignore the law and grant amnesty to 2-3 million illegal immigrants??

Oh wait. There is none...

OK... So, let's listen to what President Obama himself said about that:

"The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true"
-President Obama

Hmmmmmmm The laws on the books he talks about are STILL laws and are STILL on the books....

So, I am confused...

What changed between then and now???

Oh wait.. I know what's changed..

Romney is kicking Obama's ass in the polls and every method of attack by Team Obama falls flat and is criticized by Democrats as much as by Republicans..

THAT's what changed...

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale....

Sure Michale ... whatever you say ...

HOW could it possibly be GOOD for this country to add 2-3 million people to a work force that hasn't been able to sustain AMERICANS since Obama took office?

I hate to break it to you ... but these people are already here.

-David

This is simply not factual...

Bush did have the authorization, based on the AUMF granted after 9/11..

Only after mealy-mouth Democrats pissed and moaned did Bush return to Congress and get further authorization.. But only to appease those who were taking Al Qaeda's side in things...

But it is clear from the wording of the AUMF that Bush had the authority.. Even when Democrats whined and moaned, the STILL didn't revoke that authorization..

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

It's against the rules.. :D

Also, this attitude of yours that what you want is somehow good for the country and what other people want is not seems a bit holier than thou.

What can I say.. Sometimes the bear gets me. Sometimes I get the bear..

In this particular issue I AM in the right, morally, legally and ethically...

I mean, what gives you the right to say you know what's best for the country? How come you get to make this determination?

A little thing called "common sense"...

Let me turn around that question..

How could it POSSIBLY be "good" for this country to add 2-3 MILLION new workers, when AMERICAN CITIZENS are finding it tough to find jobs..

HOW could it possibly be GOOD for this country to add 2-3 million people to a work force that hasn't been able to sustain AMERICANS since Obama took office???

How could ANYTHING good possibly come from this??

I mean, good for the country. Not good for Democrats. It's obvious what Democrats are getting out of this..

Too bad American citizens have to be screwed over to do it..

I thought ya'all were champions for the middle class??

Can't you see how much worse things are going to be for that middle class???

Michale.....

No ... he didn't.

He did not have authorization for the wiretapping program. He had to seek it retroactively.

And ... signing statements are often the executive attaching his interpretation of legislation. Without the approval of Congress.

Sorry Michale ...

Also, this attitude of yours that what you want is somehow good for the country and what other people want is not seems a bit holier than thou.

I thought you hated when religious people did this. Yet you seem to be doing the same.

I mean, what gives you the right to say you know what's best for the country? How come you get to make this determination?

-David

Didn't garner any response.. :D I wonder why...

Michale.....

Why is Obama creating workers when he SHOULD be creating jobs???

Michale.....

Let's put the actions of both Presidents in context...

President Bush had Congressional Authorization (Including Democrats!!) for every action he took.

President Obama did NOT have Congressional Authorization for ANY action he took. In fact, he has Congressional CONDEMNATION (Including Democrats!!) for the action he took.

President Bush took the action he took for the safety and security of the country.

President Obama took the action he took for the safety and security of Obama, at the EXPENSE of the country...

President Bush's actions COST him millions of votes..

President Obama's actions CREATED him millions of votes...

Given these FACTS, it's clear who the man of integrity and honor is and who is the opportunistic weasel is..

I should also add that the truth is that they both felt like they were doing what is best for the country.

Really??

Explain how creating 2-3 million more workers in an economy that is seeing record high unemployment is in the best interests of the country...

I would LOVE to hear that explanation...

Obama did what he did to create more voters that would vote Democrat..

PERIOD..

There is absolutely NOTHING altruistic, charitable or humanitarian about Obama's actions.

He did it SOLELY to get votes...

Michale......

Hahahaah. I knew it. When I hit submit it was already there and you beat me to it.

Bush is noble and never played politics. Obama plays politics and couldn't care at all about the country.

The most ridiculous argument ever.

Of course Bush seems noble if you're a Republican. Of course Obama seems noble if you're a Democrat.

The truth is that they're both politicians. Just as the truth is that Bush expanded executive power and Obama has curtailed it.

Much as you may dislike this truth.

-David

Ummm ... how about authorizing the use of illegal wiretaps for one.

There were roughly 750 other executive orders issued by Bush as well.

Now let me guess what you're going to say ... You're going to say but Bush didn't do any of this for political motives ... wah, wah, waaaaaaa ...

I could argue that Bush started the War with Iraq, for example, for political motives. And we could go back and forth all day about what was in the head of Bush or what was in the head of Obama when they issued executive orders.

They're politicians. It's very likely that they both did many things for political reasons.

You seem to be arguing that Obama plays politics and somehow Bush was above politics. This is ridiculous.

Politics isn't the important thing here. The important thing is the expansion of executive power .

And what I do know is that Bush set the precedent for expansion of executive power during his administration and that, if anything, Obama has reverted to a previous precedent of sparingly using executive power.

Compare 750 to 20. I'll do the math for you. Obama has issued 97.33% less signing statements than Bush.

So tell me again ... who set the precedent for expanding executive power? And where were your complaints then?

-David

That's what happens when you have Democrats siding with Al Qaeda against President Bush and this country..

Bush's signing statements were in the service and defense of this country.

Obama's actions are in defense and service of Obama, the country be damned...

Michale.....

Of course, Obama doesn't have to issue signing statments.

He's the King.. Barack The First...

All he has to do is say, "THIS LAW WILL BE IGNORED" and everyone falls all over themselves to preach and praise to his glory...

No signing statements needed..

Michale.....

Yet... NO ONE can provide any examples...

So, let's lay it out.

Show me where President Bush unilaterally ordered a department of his administration to IGNORE the law so as to secure more votes for his election..

I'll be around when ya'all can find such an example...

I am guessing it will be the tenth of never.. :D

David, you're a reasonable person. I know this..

Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama took this step for ANY OTHER REASON, other than to secure more votes for his re-election???

Michale.....

This lead to some 750 executive signing orders during a time when Congress was giving the President everything he wanted.

Democrats and Barack Obama have never taken the view that the role of the President was not powerful enough.

Obama, by comparison, to Bush, has issued roughly 20 signing statements. He has also tried at every step of the way to work with Congress. This has lead to a majority in the House largely blocking any more attempts to improve the economy.

As Chris mentioned, it's kind of funny listening to all the whining here about a few Obama actions when the precedent for a unitary government was ... ahem ... not set by President Obama.

-David

The number is closer to 3 million..

The original DREAM Act only considered those under 18 or in college...

Obama's illegal action includes ANYONE up to age 30 who came to this country as a child.. I wonder why Obama wasn't satisfied with just under 18 year olds?? Oh yea, that's right. They can't vote..

As far as being free from criminal record, that is also false.. As long as the illegal doesn't have any violent crimes, they will be able to stay, even with a criminal record..

So, Obama has ignored the law to create up to 3 million new voters..

Won't that be the shitz when it STILL won't be enough..

Obama is going to have to start throwing people who vote GOP in jail....

Michale.....

The Press WON'T bust him for it..

This is simply another blatant example of the MSM being in the bag for Obama..

The ONLY places where Obama will be taken to task over this are the places that will slam Obama for not crossing his 'i's or dotting his 't's..

The rest of the MSM will not take a chance on offending the Exalted One...

Add the national security leaks, bolstering O's warrior image, and one has to wonder if there's anything his inner circle won't do to get him reelected. I mean, are there any boundaries?

Yea, that's another strike against Obama. The stories could have ONLY come from Obama's inner circle. And people are dying and being jailed because of those leaks... Hell, Obama gave up HumInt Asset that didn't even BELONG to us!!!

But, once again, you won't see any real stories on the MSM about this, because it puts the Obama Administration in a bad light.

Hell, NBC aired it's *FIRST* Fast/Furious story!!!! THAT has been going on for a frak'in YEAR!!!! And NBC just mentioned it a couple days ago!!!

Anyone who can't see that the MSM is in the bag for Obama is simply not acknowledging the facts...

Michale.....

Obama immigration order: Does 'audacity of hope' mean unchecked presidential power?

President Obama’s order deferring deportation of up to 800,000 young illegal immigrants shows a president dealing with a recalcitrant Congress by ignoring it. Is he reshaping the power of the presidency?http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0616/Obama-immigration-order-Does-audacity-of-hope-mean-unchecked-presidential-power

They're headed south over at Rasmussen... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history ...but I never know what to make of O's numbers anyway. They're forever swinging all over the place, in the 40's. But I can't imagine this turning out to be a good thing for O, with 8.2% unemployed Americans now having to compete for jobs with illegals. Those unemployed folks can't possibly be pleased about that.

There's never a shortage of hypocrisy and double standards coming out of the Left.

Meanwhile, notice the timing on O's decision to ease up on deportation:

President Obama’s decision to change his administration's deportation policies comes at a key time in the presidential campaign — just as Mitt Romney appeared to be narrowing the gap with the president in some swing states where Hispanic voters hold significant sway. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states

What amazes me is how brazenly he does it. It's like he doesn't even care if the press busts him for it. It's all about those poll numbers, and the rule of law be damned.

Add the national security leaks, bolstering O's warrior image, and one has to wonder if there's anything his inner circle won't do to get him reelected. I mean, are there any boundaries?

We are adding people not jobs.

You get the award for the MOST apropos summation of the problem in the least amount of words..

That is, in a nutshell, the exact problem...

Kudos...

Michale.....

2) Why was this decision made now, and not 2 years ago? I am sure it was made because Obama is in trouble; wants to expand his base/get more votes, and make immigration a key political issue to distract everyone form the real issues; jobs, the economy, and the deficit.

That's what probably irks me the most about this debacle...

The pandering for votes is so blatantly obvious it's nauseating. And yet, Obama is STILL defended here...

Like I asked above, what would the Left do if, in order to secure more campaign donations, President Bush had announced he was ordering his DOJ not to enforce anti-trust regulations against corporations.

The Left would be screaming IMPEACHMENT before the echo of the presser faded...

CB,

Anybody noticing a pattern here? Like, a pattern of deception, where he says whatever he needs to and then, once he's duped the masses into putting him into power, does whatever he wants to?

What is so infuriating to me is that the pattern is so blatantly obvious and yet, this guy is STILL fawned over and is STILL defended to the hilt...

I just think of what the reaction from the Left would be if Bush had tried even a SMIDGEN of this crap...

It would have made the Bush Bash Fest of the last administration seem downright pleasant by comparison..

But, our time will come. President Romney (or the next GOP President) will undoubtedly avail themselves of the precedents that Obama has set. When he (or she) does, we can sit back, watch the Left go nuclearly apoplectic and grin like the cat with the proverbial canary and render a very heart-felt, yet humble, "Payback's a bitch, ain't it?"

:D

Michale.....

“The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true,”
-President Obama, 2011

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh, right...

As Barack Obama battled Hillary Rodham Clinton over health care during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008, he was adamant about one thing: Americans, he insisted, should not be required to buy health insurance. “If things were that easy,” Mr. Obama told the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in February of that year, “I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/health/policy/insurance-mandate-may-be-health-bills-undoing.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Anybody noticing a pattern here? Like, a pattern of deception, where he says whatever he needs to and then, once he's duped the masses into putting him into power, does whatever he wants to?

"If there has ever been a president who has failed to give the middle class of America a fair shot, it is Barack Obama," the likely Republican presidential nominee told hundreds of people standing in the sunshine outside a farmhouse plastered with his bus tour's slogan, "Every Town Counts."http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2012/06/romney-obama-denying-middle-class-fair-shot/735626

I hope I have given ya'all at least SOMETHING to think about... :D

Michale.....

Make 2-3 million immigrants legal..

Make them legally compete with AMERICANS for very VERY few jobs....

Give them all of America's benefits to increase the tax burden on AMERICANS....

Do all that. Fine and dandy...

BUT....

But they don't get the right to vote...

Good??? Everyone OK with that????

I can hear the indignant sputtering indignant reaction...

HELL NO!!!! They MUST have the right to vote!!!!!

You see my point???

"This is about the souls. That angel went and created 50 000 new souls for your war machine."
-Atropos, SUPERNATURAL, My Heart Will Go On

This is about the votes...

Nothing more....

You simply HAVE to realize that....

Because I, more or less, know you... At least, I know for a fact that you are NOT that stoopid...

Michale......

OK, let me ask you THIS question..

Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama has altruistic motives in this latest power grab???

Do you HONESTLY believe that he has done what he has done for the good of the country??

Because, if you do... I have some swampland down south here I would LOVE to sell you!! :D

Obama is pandering to his base for votes.. He is CREATING 2-3 million new votes for his campaign....

And, in the process, pissing off tens of millions of American citizens who ALSO will vote..

If you can't see this, you are WAY too drunk on the koolaid...

Michale.....

Why would you think that Americans who are opposed to illegal immigrants are "xenophobes, bigots, and stupid people"??

Ya know.. That seems pretty intolerant of you...

You sound like the kind of person that you claim to despise...

I'm just sayin'.....

Michale.....

That's what prosecutorial discretion means. It what Justice department prosecutors have been doing, federal and state, have been doing since day one.

And I repeat, the Republican position, which you are so enamored with, is a stupid one. We haven't the police, jails, courts, judges, time or MONEY to arrest and deport 12 million people just because they're lawbreakers.

To everyone other than Republicans, going after the dangerous ones and those that really pose security threats makes more sense than going after children whose parents brought them here illegally instead. And then, of course, complaining about how government doesn't work because insane unworkable policies--Don't Work!