• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million

poweRob said:
How about you think about sticking to the topic instead of going on ludicrous off-topic rants? An Executive Order is an Executive Order. Get over it.
Click to expand...
Yes, an Executive Order is an Executive Order.

Good for you.!
 
That video is awesome teaching tool. :D
 
Conservative said:
Yes, like the Democrat Controlled Senate and the 76-23 vote supporting the action in Iraq plus all the Democrat Congressional Representatives on record long before Bush took office in support of the Iraq Liberation Act. It doesn't seem that those facts matter to people like you who don't want to believe anything that flies in the face of your opinions or those of the wacko left.
Click to expand...

You can always tell when Conservative is outflanked as he retreats into obfuscation. I stated that the previous administration played on the stupidity of the American electorate in selling the Iraq War. I specifically cited (with references) how they misled the public by carefully integrating the terms Iraq and Al Qaeda in speeches such that the dumb electorate did not know the difference. You did not refute this point, instead you offered up this nonsense which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Nice try!
 
upsideguy said:
You can always tell when Conservative is outflanked as he retreats into obfuscation. I stated that the previous administration played on the stupidity of the American electorate in selling the Iraq War. I specifically cited (with references) how they misled the public by carefully integrating the terms Iraq and Al Qaeda in speeches such that the dumb electorate did not know the difference. You did not refute this point, instead you offered up this nonsense which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Nice try!
Click to expand...

Really? The Iraq Liberation Act was in 1998, the vote in the Senate was the vote by elected officials and under Control of Democrats, the evidence they had was the same evidence that President Bush had, the Butler Commission and the 9/11 Commission along with world intelligence supported the Administration, there are scores of Democrat lawmakers that made case against Saddam Hussein and yet nothing is ever going to change your mind.

You have way too much time invested in ignorance. Gruber was talking about the electorate not the Congressional leaders who had the facts. Have you noticed that Democrats wanted the issue but not their words posted? Have you noticed that Democrats claimed Bush lied and mislead Congress but never brought charges against Bush? Why don't you ask yourself why? Do you really think that they wanted their words on the record? No, they played on people like you and you continue to buy the claims and ignore the actual information.
 
Conservative said:
Really? The Iraq Liberation Act was in 1998, the vote in the Senate was the vote by elected officials and under Control of Democrats, the evidence they had was the same evidence that President Bush had, the Butler Commission and the 9/11 Commission along with world intelligence supported the Administration, there are scores of Democrat lawmakers that made case against Saddam Hussein and yet nothing is ever going to change your mind.

You have way too much time invested in ignorance. Gruber was talking about the electorate not the Congressional leaders who had the facts. Have you noticed that Democrats wanted the issue but not their words posted? Have you noticed that Democrats claimed Bush lied and mislead Congress but never brought charges against Bush? Why don't you ask yourself why? Do you really think that they wanted their words on the record? No, they played on people like you and you continue to buy the claims and ignore the actual information.
Click to expand...

When you miss a point, you miss a point. You are way off on a tangent. My point was NEVER about how the Iraq war came to be.... it was about how the Bush Administration played on American ignorance (or stupidity) in using language to sell the war. My point was it is silly to be outraged that Obama is doing this as every elected official counts on ignorance in designing their messaging.

Again, since you can not address this point head-on, in debate theory I can take this as a concession of the point. No need to reply unless you can finally come up with something on -topic to say. These consistent wanderings off topic do no one any good.

Somehow, I know you will be unable to not respond as in your mind its the last post that wins the argument; yet you will be unable to respond on topic, because you really have no retort.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
When you miss a point, you miss a point. You are way off on a tangent. My point was NEVER about how the Iraq war came to be.... it was about how the Bush Administration played on American ignorance (or stupidity) in using language to sell the war. My point was it is silly to be outraged that Obama is doing this as every elected official counts on ignorance in designing their messaging.

Again, since you can not address this point head-on, in debate theory I can take this as a concession of the point. No need to reply unless you can finally come up with something on -topic to say. These consistent wanderings off topic to no one any good. Somehow, I know you will have to respond because in you mind the one that posts last wins the argument,
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what language Bush used, the Congress authorized it. Do I need to post all the Democrat Congressional Reps. quotes again, many prior to Bush taking office? Gruber got it right and that speaks volumes about people like you. Bush lost the Congress in 2006 and Republicans lost the WH in 2008 so want to change your claim about the ignorance of the American people since many agreed with you?
 
Conservative said:
It doesn't matter what language Bush used, the Congress authorized it. Do I need to post all the Democrat Congressional Reps. quotes again, many prior to Bush taking office? Gruber got it right and that speaks volumes about people like you. Bush lost the Congress in 2006 and Republicans lost the WH in 2008 so want to change your claim about the ignorance of the American people since many agreed with you?
Click to expand...

Just as I predicted, ya gotta have the last word, even if its off topic. I know you too well. The last word is yours; go ahead and post, I rest my case.
 
Gaius46 said:
Again what Obama is doing is legal. I've pointed to his statutory authority for doing so. He is not changing immigration, he is choosing not to enforce it and he is choosing to except illegals from the identification and status requirements of employment law which again he can legally do through the Attorney General.
Click to expand...

then what he isn't doing is legal it is his job to enforce the law whether he likes it or not. he is changing immigration on who can be deported when the law says that these people have to be deported. he is doing it without congressional approval which is a violation of the constitution since the president doesn't have the power to change law.

An EO is only to be used to clarify an existing law where there is ambiguity and or something that needs to be explained.
the current immigration law does not have this therefore he changed the law itself.

he cannot hand out work visa's or anything else that is the realm of the congress to do not Obama.
 
Immigration reform has such a loaded and diverse definition among political parties. Does the US fix the problems that continually pester the US and drive up the population of undocumenteds or does the US claim a portion of the latest round of undocumenteds that enter the US by making them US citizens? The dems primarily want the latter. The GOPs primarily want the former. Why not present a bill that puts forward all points of viewCertainly, being an advocate of the former has a better chance of maintaining the population of undocumenteds and maintaining the costs to governments for, for example, education and health care associated with legalizing undocumenteds. One could also admit the cost of border patrol (gates, paper work,etc.) associated with maintaining and controlling undocumented populations could be enormous.

Seems real simple why BO (the prez) is instituting an executive action on 'Immigration Reform', now, even though he waited (patiently?) for congress to come up with Immigration Reform: the next congress will be heavily influenced by GOPs. It's less likely a GOP-controlled congress will present a bill on Immigration Reform that is acceptable to BO. Politically, BO can't be seen as a roadblock to 'Immigration Reform' WHEN he vetoes Immigration Reform bills that are heavily influenced by an GOP-controlled congress. Is it a forgone conclusion that a GOP-controlled congress will not allow compromises and influences from minority parties, BO? Maybe this is the ultimate lesson BO and the dems (and maybe the GOPS, too) need to learn: allow divergent voices and influences when bills are discussed and prepared when your party has majorities in congress. Why not present an Immigration Bill that attempts to, at least, compromise and attempts to put forward all points of view? I know compromise isn't the atmosphere of today's American politics. That needs to change, too.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Immigration reform has such a loaded and diverse definition among political parties. Does the US fix the problems that continually pester the US and drive up the population of undocumenteds or does the US claim a portion of the latest round of undocumenteds that enter the US by making them US citizens? The dems primarily want the latter. The GOPs primarily want the former. Why not present a bill that puts forward all points of viewCertainly, being an advocate of the former has a better chance of maintaining the population of undocumenteds and maintaining the costs to governments for, for example, education and health care associated with legalizing undocumenteds. One could also admit the cost of border patrol (gates, paper work,etc.) associated with maintaining and controlling undocumented populations could be enormous.

Seems real simple why BO (the prez) is instituting an executive action on 'Immigration Reform', now, even though he waited (patiently?) for congress to come up with Immigration Reform: the next congress will be heavily influenced by GOPs. It's less likely a GOP-controlled congress will present a bill on Immigration Reform that is acceptable to BO. Politically, BO can't be seen as a roadblock to 'Immigration Reform' WHEN he vetoes Immigration Reform bills that are heavily influenced by an GOP-controlled congress. Is it a forgone conclusion that a GOP-controlled congress will not allow compromises and influences from minority parties, BO? Maybe this is the ultimate lesson BO and the dems (and maybe the GOPS, too) need to learn: allow divergent voices and influences when bills are discussed and prepared when your party has majorities in congress. Why not present an Immigration Bill that attempts to, at least, compromise and attempts to put forward all points of view? I know compromise isn't the atmosphere of today's American politics. That needs to change, too.
Click to expand...

The senate *did* present a comprehensive immigration reform bill and it passed on a bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the House has refused to take action. Boehner declared it dead on arrival.
 
sangha said:
The senate *did* present a comprehensive immigration reform bill and it passed on a bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the House has refused to take action. Boehner declared it dead on arrival.
Click to expand...

Yes they did, thank goodness. The Senate bill was another one of those massive Obamacare like pieces of legislation that would almost certainly have had all sorts of unintended bad consequences just as Obamacare has had. The Senate bill did have support from 14 hardcore establishment Republicans who also supported George W. Bush's immigration policy that wasn't a great deal different. So I suppose that does make it bipartisan.

The House Republicans are not willing to pass another piece of legislation like Obamacare no matter who originates it, and we can thank them for that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes they did, thank goodness. The Senate bill was another one of those massive Obamacare like pieces of legislation that would almost certainly have had all sorts of unintended bad consequences just as Obamacare has had. The Senate bill did have support from 14 hardcore establishment Republicans who also supported George W. Bush's immigration policy that wasn't a great deal different. So I suppose that does make it bipartisan.

The House Republicans are not willing to pass another piece of legislation like Obamacare no matter who originates it, and we can thank them for that.
Click to expand...

So IOW, no matter how large and complex the problem, the republicans in the House refuse to do their job.

Of all the absurd excuses I've heard, "It's too complicated for me...Waaahhhh!" is the most pitiful
 
sangha said:
So IOW, no matter how large and complex the problem, the republicans in the House refuse to do their job.

Of all the absurd excuses I've heard, "It's too complicated for me...Waaahhhh!" is the most pitiful
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you interpreted my post that way, because I said nothing at all like that. So why did you?
 
sangha said:
The senate *did* present a comprehensive immigration reform bill and it passed on a bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the House has refused to take action. Boehner declared it dead on arrival.
Click to expand...
It obviously didn't pass with a bipartisan vote from both houses of congress. And that's what the bill (the potential law) needs to move on to the president. And the president has to sign it, as well. Might be, a bill will have to be rewritten numerous times and numerous compromises reached before one bill on Immigration Reform is signed by BO. That's the American process to creating laws. In spite of Boehner. In spite of BO. In spite of Reid. In spite of congress a bill can be created by congress and signed by the president where it become law.

I wonder did Boehner and his fellow house cohorts make any suggestions to make the bill more palatable?
Did Reid and his fellow senate cohorts make any suggestions to make the bill more palatable?

I know the answer to both is no. It's a my way or the highway kind of situation. Bad for American government. The president is continuing this same attitude.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I'm sorry you interpreted my post that way, because I said nothing at all like that. So why did you?
Click to expand...

The only argument you presented against the Senate's immigration bill was that it was too big, so you did say that.
 
cabse5 said:
It obviously didn't pass with a bipartisan vote from both houses of congress. And that's what the bill (the potential law) needs to move on to the president. And the president has to sign it, as well. Might be, a bill will have to be rewritten numerous times and numerous compromises reached before one bill on Immigration Reform is signed by BO. That's the American process to creating laws. In spite of Boehner. In spite of BO. In spite of Reid. In spite of congress a bill can be created by congress and signed by the president where it become law.

I wonder did Boehner and his fellow house cohorts make any suggestions to make the bill more palatable?
Did Reid and his fellow senate cohorts make any suggestions to make the bill more palatable?

I know the answer to both is no. It's a my way or the highway kind of situation. Bad for American government. The president is continuing this same attitude.
Click to expand...

The answer to your 2nd question is obviously yes as demonstrated by the bipartisan support it got in the senate. The answer to your first is No. Boehner won't even talk about it.
 
The House created their own Immigration Reform bill that was pigeonholed by Reid and the Senate.
The Senate created their own Immigration Reform bill that was pigeonholed by Boehner and the House.

I'm sorry. Let me clarify the questions for you:
Did Reid and other Senate members make any suggestions to the House to make the House's bill more palatable to the Senate? No.
Did Boehner and other House members make any suggestions to the Senate to make the Senate's bill more palatable to the House? No.

I'm thinking there may either be a my way or highway or ambivalence of attitude towards Immigration Reform. BO is like gang busters on the issue.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
It obviously didn't pass with a bipartisan vote from both houses of congress. And that's what the bill (the potential law) needs to move on to the president. And the president has to sign it, as well. Might be, a bill will have to be rewritten numerous times and numerous compromises reached before one bill on Immigration Reform is signed by BO. That's the American process to creating laws. In spite of Boehner. In spite of BO. In spite of Reid. In spite of congress a bill can be created by congress and signed by the president where it become law.

I wonder did Boehner and his fellow house cohorts make any suggestions to make the bill more palatable?
Did Reid and his fellow senate cohorts make any suggestions to make the bill more palatable?

I know the answer to both is no. It's a my way or the highway kind of situation. Bad for American government. The president is continuing this same attitude.
Click to expand...

Yes. They suggested that it be done in easy to understand and manageable increments and get each step right before moving onto the next. That wasn't acceptable to Senator Reid, so the whole thing is suspended in limbo. Had Congress approached healthcare reform as Boehner suggested for immigration reform, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. As Senator Schumer made quite clear earlier this week.
 
cabse5 said:
The House created their own Immigration Reform bill that was pigeonholed by Reid and the Senate.
The Senate created their own Immigration Reform bill that was pigeonholed by Boehner and the House.

I'm sorry. Let me clarify the questions for you:
Did Reid and other Senate members make any suggestions to the House to make the House's bill more palatable to the Senate? No.
Did Boehner and other House members make any suggestions to the Senate to make the Senate's bill more palatable to the House? No.

I'm thinking there may either be a my way or highway or ambivalence of attitude towards Immigration Reform. BO is like gang busters on the issue.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see. As far as the leaders of one house of congress reaching out to the leader of the other house, I can't say but I doubt that there was any formal talks. However, I'm sure they talk from time to time and they have an idea of where the other leader (and his constituent members of Congress) stand on the issue.

IOW, you do make a good point. The real holdup is not Reid or Boehner; It's how obstinantly opposed both parties are to the others idea of reform.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No. That isn't what I said.
Click to expand...

Then what other objection did you state when you said the House shouldn't vote on the Senate's immigration bill? Maybe it's there and I just missed it somehow, so point it out and I will retract my claim
 
sangha said:
Then what other objection did you state when you said the House shouldn't vote on the Senate's immigration bill? Maybe it's there and I just missed it somehow, so point it out and I will retract my claim
Click to expand...

The money world was Obamacare-like. A huge piece of legislation with so many vagaries and opportunities for so many to make mischief with it, it would likely have had just as negative effect on many.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The money world was Obamacare-like.
Click to expand...

WTF does that mean? What "money world" are you talking about?

A huge piece of legislation with so many vagaries and opportunities for so many to make mischief with it, it would likely have had just as negative effect on many.
Click to expand...

And again, your only complaint is that it's a big bill.

It's their job to understand legislation, even if it's complex. They should do their job without childish excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom