Who said anything about another thread?
There can be no thread wherein Unconstitutional Executive Orders can be considered Constitutional.
When I said you could stop I meant because if you talk crazy like that right off the bat there's no point going on.
Unless you can show me in the Constitution that such extra-Constitutional politically driven acts are allowed.
What I was talking about was process government, something that clearly eludes you. As for the constitutionality of the President's EO's, we'll just have to take a "wait and see" approach to this one since the ruling by Judge Hanen, US District Court, was only a
temporary stay and not an out right ruling for or against the EO. Moreover, the judge only stayed that portion of the EO that affects illegal immigrant parents, not the EO in its entirety. Appeals are certainly forthcoming and depending on how the Appeals Court rules, the matter could go to the SCOTUS. Now, do I think the President over-reached here? Yes, but not any more than GHW Bush did when he allowed illegal aliens to stay in the US as long as they where sponsored by and living with a legal resident alien or a US citizen at the time their citizenship application or work visa was being processed. And he did all that via EO.
Of course, Reagan authorized the LARGEST amnesty pool of illegal aliens in U.S. history and he gets a pass because he happened to get his amnesty passed by Congress. I often wonder what tic's Republicans off more about this issue:
1) the fact that they don't want to be seen as repeating past mistakes on immigration issues; or,
2) the fact that the President is trying to act where they won't.
One other thing.
Ya know that video you posted where Obama said W was unpatriotic because he doubled the national debt ... to below $10T?
I posted that video somewhere too because the irony fairly jumps off the screen ... for most people.
Take a guess why that is.
Is it the fact that federal spending under Obama exceeded that which GWB spent? Yeah, I know that already. But that wasn't the issue now was it?
Then your distinction between what Obama said about W and what Rudy said about Obama was priceless.
There's a difference between saying someone is "unpatriotic" and saying "they don't love their country". Being purposely ignorant of the clear difference between the two...that's priceless!
Yes. For one thing, bringing up Bush in this case is nothing more than a deflective tactic often employed by folks who know they're losing their argument. So, they have to do something to change the subject. But to be clear, pointing out what someone did and calling it "un-American (i.e, "unpatriotic") is very different from claiming someone doesn't love their native country because "[t]he[y] didn't grow up through love of this country as you and I did". Or claiming that he doesn't love this country simply because he acknowledges to the world many of the mistakes we've made in foreign policy. And notice what Giuliani did? He was quick to say he believes that Pres. Obama is a "patriot", but right behind that he condemns his love for country. How can you be a patriot for your country and not love your country? Do you see the irony is that? If not, you clearly missed it. Perhaps because you're wearing partisan colored glasses. :roll:
If Rudy said Obama's actions were unpatriotic you would have been okay with it?
Depending on what actions he was referring to. But I certainly wouldn't have said the man didn't love his country, not unless he actually did something that clearly demonstrated that he hated his country, i.e., burn the U.S. flag or a copy of the Constitution or sell government secrets or resigned the Presidency and move to another country renouncing his U.S. citizenship. You know, clear signs that he does not love his country instead of spouting off some partisan, rhetorical non-sense.