Author Topic: So immigration...  (Read 60127 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #202 on: October 03, 2014, 10:57:04 AM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/02/obama-ill-take-executive-action-on-immigration-between-the-midterms-and-end-of-the-year/

“President Obama said Thursday night that he would take executive action on immigration sometime between the midterm elections and the end of the year.  Speaking before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Gala, Obama said he shares the frustration of many in the room upset that immigration reform remains stalled. Obama was accompanied to the gala by two congressional interns who are DREAMers -- young unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States before the age of 16.”

I get angry when I think of the President changing laws by himself or ignoring to enforce laws established by Congress.  He took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the country.  And some members of Congress feel they have the right to thumb their noses at law too.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #203 on: October 03, 2014, 11:52:27 AM »
Gosh, I can't imagine why the Pres is waiting until after the mid-terms.

It's cute when he just blatantly lies to journalists who ask him that very question.

Quote
Chuck Todd: I'm going to go to immigration. You made a decision to delay any executive action until after the election. What do you tell the person that's going to get deported before the election that this decision was essentially made in your hopes of saving a Democratic Senate?

PRES. OBAMA: Well, that's not the reason. ... I want to make sure we get it right. I want to make sure, number one, that all the T's are crossed.

Chuck Todd: Looks like politics. I mean, it looks like election-year politics.

PRES. OBAMA: Not only do I want to make sure that the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, but here's the other thing, Chuck, and I'm being honest now  :lol:, about the politics of it. This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had from Central America a surge of kids who are showing up at the border, got a lot of attention. And a lot of Americans started thinking, "We've got this immigration crisis on our hands." And what I want to do is when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it's sustainable. I want to make sure that--

Chuck Todd: But the public's not behind you.

PRES. OBAMA: No, no, no, no.

Chuck Todd: Are you concerned the public wouldn't support what you did?

PRES. OBAMA: What I'm saying is that I'm going to act because it's the right thing for the country. But it's going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we've done on unaccompanied children, and why it's necessary.

President Obama just needs more time to make sure he's got all his ducks in a row before trotting out amnesty! The midterms have nothing to do with it!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #204 on: October 03, 2014, 01:48:10 PM »
Should be interesting if the 'pubs take over the senate.  :party:

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #205 on: October 03, 2014, 02:23:50 PM »
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #206 on: October 03, 2014, 02:26:42 PM »
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

That is pretty much what Chuck Todd did.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #207 on: October 03, 2014, 02:27:13 PM »
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

Because Chuck wants to continue to be in the room.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #208 on: October 03, 2014, 02:30:19 PM »
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

Because Chuck wants to continue to be in the room.

I know, I know. Would be hilarious if it happened, though.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #209 on: October 03, 2014, 03:11:35 PM »
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

That is pretty much what Chuck Todd did.

More respectfully tho
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #210 on: October 04, 2014, 12:56:23 PM »
It seems disingenuous for the Fed to go around suing states to prevent them from enforcing their own immigration laws, then to turn around and just take "executive action" to usurp it's own legislation.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #211 on: October 04, 2014, 04:19:03 PM »
It seems disingenuous for the Fed to go around suing states to prevent them from enforcing their own immigration laws, then to turn around and just take "executive action" to usurp it's own legislation.

Take it up with Holder. Oh wait - he finally resigned. Six years was a pretty impressive run. So many achievements... Fast & Furious, refusing to enforce immigration and other laws, stonewalling doc requests. "Department of Justice" indeed. The cronyism and corruption that has rotted once revered institutions is a sad indictment of our decline as a nation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #212 on: October 23, 2014, 10:38:56 PM »
Read tonight Obama the High Overlord of Obamaland will issue 34 million guest worker visas after the election.  I hope that the author of the article was high on something.  It not, that will put a kink in every conservative's weasel.

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36547
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #213 on: October 23, 2014, 10:55:20 PM »
Weasel kink is a pretty big problem these days.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #214 on: October 24, 2014, 08:12:24 AM »
Read tonight Obama the High Overlord of Obamaland will issue 34 million guest worker visas after the election.  I hope that the author of the article was high on something.  It not, that will put a kink in every conservative's weasel.

Not mine. I think anyone who can find a job in America should have the legal means to do so.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #215 on: October 24, 2014, 10:46:11 AM »
Is "kink in his weasel" an actual saying or did reno just make it up? I ask because it's awesome.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #216 on: October 24, 2014, 01:33:41 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #217 on: October 24, 2014, 01:52:34 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #218 on: October 24, 2014, 02:53:35 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #219 on: October 24, 2014, 02:54:51 PM »
Is "kink in his weasel" an actual saying or did reno just make it up? I ask because it's awesome.

can we get back on topic here?

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #220 on: October 24, 2014, 02:55:38 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.

I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #221 on: October 24, 2014, 02:58:10 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters. 



It's only political for the "libs". Republicans are simply being genuinely racist.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #222 on: October 24, 2014, 03:39:29 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.

I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.

Who said anything about fraud? I'm talking about the added cost of ER visits, schools, law enforcement, etc. Importing and legalizing millions of poor low-skilled workers is a really bad idea - especially when we've already got millions of poor unskilled Americans on the public dime. Let's see how unwilling they are to work for minimum wage when the welfare is cut back. How about we start there?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #223 on: October 24, 2014, 03:40:42 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters. 



It's only political for the "libs". Republicans are simply being genuinely racist.

Not that it really matters, but I don't think I'm being racist. I'm worried about swamping our already maxed-out welfare system when we should be moving in the opposite direction.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #224 on: October 24, 2014, 04:58:59 PM »
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.

I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.

Who said anything about fraud? I'm talking about the added cost of ER visits, schools, law enforcement, etc. Importing and legalizing millions of poor low-skilled workers is a really bad idea - especially when we've already got millions of poor unskilled Americans on the public dime. Let's see how unwilling they are to work for minimum wage when the welfare is cut back. How about we start there?

Most of the illegal immigrants I encounter earn well above minimum wage performing jobs that your typical American on welfare is simply unable to perform adequately. It's not just a matter of these Americans being unwilling to work for minimum wage. You also have to factor in that no employer actually wants them.