• 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's Executive Order[W:265]

Is Obama breaking the law?

  • Yes, by his own words he is breaking the law

    Votes: 36 48.6%
  • No, perfectly legal

    Votes: 13 17.6%
  • Doing same as Regan and Bush did

    Votes: 13 17.6%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Dont care

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Go Fish

    Votes: 6 8.1%

  • Total voters
    74
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Obama baited them. They are foolishly taking the bait.

It's like watching a bunch of kids.

I take your point. This was a gambit, and the response has to be both well thought out and explained in a persuasive way. But if we want to be able to call this a free country with a straight face, we can't just sit still for whatever outrage this arrogant SOB feels like perpetrating. The most important thing for the country is for Republicans is to win the presidency in 2016--but they can also lose it by being too weak.

I think several different things may have to be done. What about public demonstrations, for a start? Rep. Bachmann is the only one I've heard mention them. She called on people to come to Washington on December 3, and I'm all for it.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

So what Obama did was absolutely lawful because a right wing partisan said it was, even though she has no qualifications? Is that about right?

Not even close

Whenever you try to put words in another poster's mouth, you fail
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

That would be excellent way to bring more Latinos on the Democratic side for 2016.

Maybe...maybe not.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

That's possible, but my hunch is that the GOP is going to roll over on this nd do nothing and for a good reason (ie the repubs like immigration and the cheap labor it provides. They're just playing politics and throwing their base some red meat)
Imagine that? I agree with you. The Establishment Republicans will make noises but will do nothing effective.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Regardless what you might think, responding to a misunderstanding is not lying. That's what I did.

I also asked for, received and acknowledged your clarification. And, in an effort to clearly understand you, I restated your position and asked if I was correct in my understanding.

Now you are avoiding that request. I wonder why.

I have avoided nothing and been exceedingly clear in my responses. Your inability to understand clearly stated opinions do not justify your repeated mischaracterizations, which are dishonest.

But I'll try one more time:

Experts on ethics have long agreed that deception is not always unethical, as you have naively tried to argued. It depends on the circumstances.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

imagine that? I agree with you. The establishment republicans will make noises but will do nothing effective.

republicans talk a good game, however they do very little.

Remember for 6 six years the republicans controlled our government , in that time did they dismantle liberalism in it, did they reduce the size of government, ...no, .........they increased the size of government, and kept liberalism in it intact.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I have avoided nothing and been exceedingly clear in my responses. Your inability to understand clearly stated opinions do not justify your repeated mischaracterizations, which are dishonest.

But I'll try one more time:

Experts on ethics have long agreed that deception is not always unethical, as you have naively tried to argued. It depends on the circumstances.

Then I would be correct to characterize your position as: The ends justify lying...as long as I agree with the ends?

Look...I'm just trying to understand you. Of course, you don't owe me anything and you would be perfectly justified in not answering my questions. If you don't want to answer me...just say so and I'll stop asking.


btw, you seem to suffer from your own tendency to misunderstand. I haven't tried to argue that deception is always unethical. I did express an opinion that lying is dishonorable.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

So what Obama did was absolutely lawful because a right wing partisan said it was, even though she has no qualifications? Is that about right?

No, its not.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I take your point. This was a gambit, and the response has to be both well thought out and explained in a persuasive way. But if we want to be able to call this a free country with a straight face, we can't just sit still for whatever outrage this arrogant SOB feels like perpetrating. The most important thing for the country is for Republicans is to win the presidency in 2016--but they can also lose it by being too weak.

I think several different things may have to be done. What about public demonstrations, for a start? Rep. Bachmann is the only one I've heard mention them. She called on people to come to Washington on December 3, and I'm all for it.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea if what Obama is doing is good, or bad, or Constitutional, or not, but what I do know as a grown up is that he baited them last night, and meltdowns from the GOP are only going to make the situation worse - and make them look worse.

In the business world none of this would be happening, and if it did, the company would end up failing completely if senior management acted as they are in Washington.

If the GOP really wants to have a chance at the WH in 2016, they have to earn it, and acting petty and belligerent isn't going to work. They need to be calm, rational, and have their facts.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Then I would be correct to characterize your position as: The ends justify lying...as long as I agree with the ends?

Look...I'm just trying to understand you. Of course, you don't owe me anything and you would be perfectly justified in not answering my questions. If you don't want to answer me...just say so and I'll stop asking.

There is no "magic formula" which is what you seem to be looking for. I'm sorry that it won't fit on a bumper sticker, but life is complicated like that.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

No, its not.

What he did wasn't lawful? You said on page 1 it was. And you said the reason it was is because Dana Perino said it was.

She has no credentials to make that claim. So why do you use her words as proof positive that what Obama has proposed is perfectly within his rights?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Here's an excellent read on the subject:

Ten Arguments Against Obama's Executive Action - AMAC, Inc. AMAC, Inc.

Excerpts:

Four: If you issue an EO making permanent residents or citizens out of a significant number (say, five to seven million) illegal, unentitled, or “undocumented” foreigners on U.S. soil, you are instantly obligating federal taxpayers and states to afford these newly minted “Americans” or “newly legal residents” any number of privileges, entitlements, and rights not previously held, above and beyond not being deported. This plainly costs taxpayers and States money, offering them every reason to appeal the decision and apparent standing to do so. (IN EFFECT, IT'S A FORM OF TAXATION WITHOUT PROPER REPRESENTATION. ALL TAX / REVENUE BILLS ARE RO ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PER THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Origination Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Logicman).

Argument five: If you issue an EO that instantly grants “stay and work” status to currently illegal aliens, even if they have legal relatives, you instantly soak up part of the job pool from which real Americans are hoping to gain employment. In effect, you are hammering the working-class Americans again.

Six: If you issue this EO, you instantly send an international message – a new and shocking invitation: “We just gave away the citizenship or residency farm – so please line up or flood over and come get yours.” In effect, such an EO will trigger multiple future waves of illegal migration for economic purposes by new and unconnected illegal aliens who see that our laws are not being honored, and so they will come for free entry, too – if not at once, then soon enough.

Nine: Just as adopting a child into a home affects other family members, instantly making “legal residents” or “citizens” out of five or seven million people – many of whom snuck into the country unlawfully – would have profound effects on the rest of the country. It cheapens the brand we call American; it undermines the values and processes in which we take pride. It slights and diminishes the struggle of those who have strived long and hard to become naturalized citizens, or permanent residents, many of whom are also from these same countries. It says that laws under which we live are of less value, and can be unilaterally upended by one man. It reduces respect for all those who have come to our shores legally, and who take pride in being legally American. This is no small matter. We are, collectively, only what we say we are and live up to – when we cheapen the definition of American, we cheapen it for everyone.

Finally: We are a nation and people of laws, not of whimsy or capricious acts by self-adulating leaders, not subject to any dictator or the assumption of power by this or that president. These lines are well-drawn. The U.S. Supreme Court long ago made the point. We are not ruled by executive order, never have been, legally and prudentially cannot be, and should not now be. For any president to believe that he has the power to step upon all these legal and prudential considerations, because he has a pen and a phone, indifference to rule of law, or illusions of unilateral authority is simply misguided.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea if what Obama is doing is good, or bad, or Constitutional, or not, but what I do know as a grown up is that he baited them last night, and meltdowns from the GOP are only going to make the situation worse - and make them look worse.

In the business world none of this would be happening, and if it did, the company would end up failing completely if senior management acted as they are in Washington.

If the GOP really wants to have a chance at the WH in 2016, they have to earn it, and acting petty and belligerent isn't going to work. They need to be calm, rational, and have their facts.


here you go:

Constitution
article 2 section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.


shall is mandatory

may is discretionary
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

There is no "magic formula" which is what you seem to be looking for. I'm sorry that it won't fit on a bumper sticker, but life is complicated like that.

Oh, I know. That's why I added that last part that you spoke of..."as long as I agree with the ends".
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

He did not say that. Not on page 1 or any other page

Please stop posting lies.

What he did wasn't lawful? You said on page 1 it was. And you said the reason it was is because Dana Perino said it was.

She has no credentials to make that claim. So why do you use her words as proof positive that what Obama has proposed is perfectly within his rights?

I didn't say that, I told you I used her because she is a partisan.

Obama Immigration Executive Action: Why It Will Be Legal | New Republic
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I didn't say that, I told you I used her because she is a partisan.

Obama Immigration Executive Action: Why It Will Be Legal | New Republic

Please stop embarrassing yourself, pete. And also, I have no idea what that other poster's post is doing there. I'm posting to you and don't read his.

On page 1 you said what Obama did was lawful. I asked what your credentials were for making that claim, and why Obama changed his mind.
I asked you what changed, and then you said he was talking about amnesty previously.
I pointed out that he was not talking about amnesty previously.
I asked you what changed between 2011 and last night.
This was your response:

He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite

First you said he was talking about amnesty. That post was a lie. Then you said he was wrong in 2011 when he said it was unlawful to do, and you post Dana Perino's words to somehow, I gather, back up your defense of Obama.

The fail runs deep in your posts today.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

It takes two to tango and Obama is the most partisan president in my memory and has created the most divided government in history.

Liberals said the same thing about Bush. So the pendulum swings.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Please stop embarrassing yourself, pete. And also, I have no idea what that other poster's post is doing there. I'm posting to you and don't read his.

On page 1 you said what Obama did was lawful. I asked what your credentials were for making that claim, and why Obama changed his mind.
I asked you what changed, and then you said he was talking about amnesty previously.
I pointed out that he was not talking about amnesty previously.
I asked you what changed between 2011 and last night.
This was your response:



First you said he was talking about amnesty. That post was a lie. Then you said he was wrong in 2011 when he said it was unlawful to do, and you post Dana Perino's words to somehow, I gather, back up your defense of Obama.

The fail runs deep in your posts today.

That is common among ObamaBots; when Obama chooses not to act, for 5 years, it is all cool and when he does choose to act... well that is cool too. ;)
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Hi Pete,

That's actually not what he said.

Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.“


Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall | The White House

In 2011 he said he didn't have the power to do this. In 2014 he said he had the power to do this. He didn't mention amnesty in 2011.

What changed?

I did a little research and nothing changed, he was asked about a blanket statement about students. And of course that wouldn't be legal. Here is the question he was asked:
MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through univision.com told us -- I’m reading -- “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Please stop embarrassing yourself, pete. And also, I have no idea what that other poster's post is doing there. I'm posting to you and don't read his.

On page 1 you said what Obama did was lawful. I asked what your credentials were for making that claim, and why Obama changed his mind.
I asked you what changed, and then you said he was talking about amnesty previously.
I pointed out that he was not talking about amnesty previously.
I asked you what changed between 2011 and last night.
This was your response:



First you said he was talking about amnesty. That post was a lie. Then you said he was wrong in 2011 when he said it was unlawful to do, and you post Dana Perino's words to somehow, I gather, back up your defense of Obama.

The fail runs deep in your posts today.

But you dishonestly didn't include the question asked or that even that one was asked. Typical
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

But you dishonestly didn't include the question asked or that even that one was asked. Typical

I wasn't dishonest. My posts are all right in this thread. Am I to understand that you don't understand what questions you're answering?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I did a little research and nothing changed, he was asked about a blanket statement about students. And of course that wouldn't be legal. Here is the question he was asked:

His answer is the very proposal he made last night. In 2011 he said he had no authority to give a temporary protective status. Last night he said otherwise.

You said he was wrong back then. Now you're saying he was right back then? Make up your mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom