Republicans can make the same mistake over and over again. Democrats must learn from Republican mistakes. Gridlock is good. Tax break money trickles down. Iraq has WMD's. Cheney didn't know the shotgun was loaded. All life lessons courtesy of our incompetent GOP> 😛
Cheney was firing at a quail in flight. He knew the shotgun was loaded.
He mistook a human for a quail? Common mistake.
I'm sure once they get to the 8th set of hearings on this we'll finally get the truth.......... 😛
After really looking at what the President intends to do, methinks it will have the same limited (if any) effect on the situation has a whole, much like Executive actions on this matter in the past, no matter who the President was.
This plan calls for illegals to voluntarily step forward and apply for amnesty, risking deportation by doing so. Why take that kind of risk when you really don't have to?
The reason I posted the info about the 2013 bill is that I believe this is a rare issue in that broad, sweeping reform is the best way to go. If DC has gotten to the point where once side cannot "allow" anything positive to occur as that risks the other side looking even the most smidgen of positive in any way, shape or form, then that's not systemically designed gridlock that is the best for everyone. That's pure dysfunction.
Thing is, essentially there is a sentiment that if you are a political party that is currently in the minority, the best thing is to do nothing. That is a byproduct of a two-party system, which human nature dictates must be hypocritical. This applies equally to both parties and interchanges as the election winds blow.
The worst part is, while doing nothing day after day, month after month, year after year, a situation gets worse in the meantime. The meantime will always kick everyone in the rear.
[He simply cannot. He is calling it prosecutorial discretion because even he knows he cannot but everyone here supporting him is basically being honest and saying the truth which is that enacting his own legislation is EXACTLY what he is doing and it is totally unconstitutional. And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. You are basically supporting dictatorship.
Wasn't the precedent already set when Reagan did the same exact thing? Was it unconstitutional and a dictatorship when both Reagan and Bush #1 did the exact same thing? Or is it only unconstitutional because it's Obama doing the same thing? I just love when the right comes out with all the massive outrage calling things unconstitutional when their own heros did the exact same thing. Hypocrisy at its finest! If Obama is a dictator and a criminal for doing this, does that make Reagan and Bush #1 dictators and criminals too?
They didn't do the exact same thing. That is simply a bald faced lie.
They sure did do the same thing whether you choose to believe it or not. Either they all broke the constitution or none of them did.
The reason I posted the info about the 2013 bill is that I believe this is a rare issue in that broad, sweeping reform is the best way to go.
I respect your point of view, but don't share it.
Sweeping reform, as we've come to learn from numerous attempts, is the basis for all sorts consequences and misdeeds that no one ever takes responsibility for, and never gets fixed. I'd rather see more limited actions taken that are more specific in scope and more easily tracked and managed.
Obamacare is the ultimate example. While some like to point to enrollment alone as proof of success, so much is still unknown about it's impact and costs that it's impossible to claim success at this point. It will still take years to sort out it's results.
Immigration should be attacked as multiple issues. Border security can and should stand alone, as it as much a national security issue as an immigration one. Immigration changes are complex enough to deserve it's own separate bill. And associated issues; like modifying/eliminating birthright citizenry, can be dealt with separately.
I see no reason for a massive, complicated, byzantine bill to deal with all these things at once. Most of the supporters of such an approach seem to desire wide open borders, continued confusion, and political advantage more than they want a lawful, controlled result.
Obamacare is the ultimate example. While some like to point to enrollment alone as proof of success, so much is still unknown about it's impact and costs that it's impossible to claim success at this point. It will still take years to sort out it's results.
And the Republican plan was do nothing.
I'm so sick of the complaints about the "unknown" that I just say put an expiration date on everyone without insurance. You reach 29 years old, no insurance? Firing squad.
Obamacare is the ultimate example. While some like to point to enrollment alone as proof of success, so much is still unknown about it's impact and costs that it's impossible to claim success at this point. It will still take years to sort out it's results.
And the Republican plan was do nothing.
I'm so sick of the complaints about the "unknown" that I just say put an expiration date on everyone without insurance. You reach 29 years old, no insurance? Firing squad.
Interesting how Fujirich has been calling the ACA a failure for some time now and says that we won't know if it is a success for years. Now we will get a post from him claiming he never said it was a failure. 😛
Obamacare is the ultimate example. While some like to point to enrollment alone as proof of success, so much is still unknown about it's impact and costs that it's impossible to claim success at this point. It will still take years to sort out it's results.
And the Republican plan was do nothing.
I'm so sick of the complaints about the "unknown" that I just say put an expiration date on everyone without insurance. You reach 29 years old, no insurance? Firing squad.
Interesting how Fujirich has been calling the ACA a failure for some time now and says that we won't know if it is a success for years. Now we will get a post from him claiming he never said it was a failure. 😛
No, I believe it will be a huge failure, and have been consistent about that and the reasons.
It's not supported by the opinion of the people, it's construction and sales pitch were filled with lies, it does not and will not will not save money for the majority (just the opposite), it's original supporters - other than the narcissist in the WH - are running from it as it's become an electoral death sentance, it only shifts the coverage problem and doesn't fix it (see CBO estimates of coverage in the out-years, 10's of millions remain uncovered), and once enough years pass and it becomes obvious that this is just a program to give insurance companies "too big to fail" status under govt's wing the people - at least those paying - will really turn on it.
But I'm willing to put that aside and wait till that becomes obvious even to the diehard supporters for the sake of decent debate. Maybe some of you care to contribute something of value.
Obamacare is the ultimate example. While some like to point to enrollment alone as proof of success, so much is still unknown about it's impact and costs that it's impossible to claim success at this point. It will still take years to sort out it's results.
And the Republican plan was do nothing.
I'm so sick of the complaints about the "unknown" that I just say put an expiration date on everyone without insurance. You reach 29 years old, no insurance? Firing squad.
Interesting how Fujirich has been calling the ACA a failure for some time now and says that we won't know if it is a success for years. Now we will get a post from him claiming he never said it was a failure. 😛
No, I believe it will be a huge failure, and have been consistent about that and the reasons.
It's not supported by the opinion of the people, it's construction and sales pitch were filled with lies, it does not and will not will not save money for the majority (just the opposite), it's original supporters - other than the narcissist in the WH - are running from it as it's become an electoral death sentance, it only shifts the coverage problem and doesn't fix it (see CBO estimates of coverage in the out-years, 10's of millions remain uncovered), and once enough years pass and it becomes obvious that this is just a program to give insurance companies "too big to fail" status under govt's wing the people - at least those paying - will really turn on it.
But I'm willing to put that aside and wait till that becomes obvious even to the diehard supporters for the sake of decent debate. Maybe some of you care to contribute something of value.
Try taking it away from those who like/support it and see what happens.
So the 6-7 million who are enrolled are going to overcome the will of the 55-60% of the population who currently dislike it? Did we learn anything from the last election? Even Chuck Schumer is running from it! Guess who's up for re-election in 2016? Good luck Chuck.
I respect your point of view, but don't share it.
Immigration should be attacked as multiple issues. Border security can and should stand alone, as it as much a national security issue as an immigration one. Immigration changes are complex enough to deserve it's own separate bill. And associated issues; like modifying/eliminating birthright citizenry, can be dealt with separately.
I see no reason for a massive, complicated, byzantine bill to deal with all these things at once. Most of the supporters of such an approach seem to desire wide open borders, continued confusion, and political advantage more than they want a lawful, controlled result.
Respectfully, did you read any of the information I posted about the 2013 bill?
Here's Section One again. NONE of the other provisions in the bill can even be acted upon until every single one of these actions are taken:
S. 744 - Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
Passed in the United States Senate on June 27, 2013This bill enacted, established and provided for:
I - Border Security
Overview
-Deploy at least 38,405 full-time Border Patrol agents along the southern border (including an additional 19,200 more than currently in place)
-Mandate an electronic exit system at all ports where Customs and Border Protection agents are deployed
-Construct at least 700 miles of fencing, including double fencing
-Increasing mobile surveillance
-Deploy aircraft and radio communications
-Construct additional Border Patrol stations and operating bases
-Hire additional prosecutors, judges, and staff
-Provide additional training to border officers
-Increase prosecutions of illegal border crossings
-Establish mandatory area-specific technology and infrastructure that includes watch towers, camera systems, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, radiation isotope identification devices, mobile automated targeting systems, unmanned aircraft, radar systems, helicopters, and marine vessels, among other minimum requirements.
-Mandates 24-hour surveillance of the border region using mobile, video, and portable systems, as well as unmanned aircraft, and deploys 1,000 distress beacon stations in areas where migrant deaths occur.
-Increase enforcement against visa overstays
-The Department of Homeland Security is required to initiate removal (deportation) proceedings, confirm that relief from removal is pending or granted, or otherwise close 90 percent of the cases of immigrants who have overstayed their visas by more than 180 days in the last 12 months.
-Pilot program is created to notify immigrants that their visas are about to expire.Funding
-$46.3 billion of initial funding to implement the Act.
-Additional funding will be provided by visa and other user fees, which may be increased as necessary.
-$30 billion will be dedicated over a 10-year period to hiring and deploying at least 19,200 additional Border Patrol agents.
-$8 billion will be dedicated to the Southern Border Fencing Strategy, of which $7.5 billion will be for deployment and maintenance of fencing.
-$750 million will be dedicated to E-Verify implementation and expansion.
-$4.5 billion will be spent to carry out the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy, and—if necessary—$2 billion will be allocated to implement the recommendations of the Southern Border Security Commission.Southern Border Fencing Strategy
-The bill requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit within 180 days of enactment of the bill a Southern Border Fencing Strategy that will identify where 700 miles of fencing, double fencing, infrastructure, and technology should be deployed.
-The Secretary must also produce a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy within 180 days that will establish “effective control” of the border, which is defined as persistent surveillance of 100 percent of the border and a 90 percent effectiveness rate in preventing illegal crossings.
-The bill mandates the creation of a bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission that will be responsible for making recommendations and spending additional funds in order to achieve border-security goals if the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot certify “effective control” of all border sectors for at least 1 fiscal year within 5 years of enactment.Mandated Requirements PRIOR To Illegals Beginning A Path To Resident Alien Or Legal Citizenship Status
-The Southern Border Security Strategy must be deployed and operational
-The Southern Border Fencing Strategy must be implemented and 700 miles of fencing completed
-Mandatory employment verification system for all employers must be implemented
-Electronic exit system must be implemented at all air and sea ports where Customs and Border Protection officers are present
-At least 38,405 full-time Border Patrol agents must be deployed along the southern borderOversight
-Independent Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task Force, with 29 members appointed by the President, including 12 members from the northern border region and 17 from the southern border region, will be established to make recommendations on border-enforcement policies, the impact of these policies on border communities, the protection of due-process rights and civil rights of border residents and migrants, and the training of border personnel, among other duties
-he Secretary of Homeland Security will be required to report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of border security, the effectiveness of surveillance, wait times for border crossings, and border staffing
-The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Ombudsman’s authority will be expanded to cover all DHS immigration agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
What part of that do you have issue with? If people want border security dealt with on a completely separate basis, then maybe the Speaker of the House could, you know, bring the bill up for debate, representatives could amend it, vote on it, and even change it enough that their version goes back to the Senate for more debate, amendments and votes.
You know, that whole governing thing...but apparently the best thing to do is...nothing.
What part of that do you have issue with?
Mainly the part where the current administration picks and chooses what to implement, what not to implement, and what to enforce or not. Their track record of selective enforcement is well established. How many waivers, delays, and adjustments were added to their signature law after the fact? Dozens.
Others have found similar concerns...
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/4BigProblems.pdf
http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/02/gang-immigration-bill-s-744-is-comprehensively-flawed/
Ridicule the conservative sources, but different points of view make it a debate.
What part of that do you have issue with?
Mainly the part where the current administration picks and chooses what to implement, what not to implement, and what to enforce or not. Their track record of selective enforcement is well established. How many waivers, delays, and adjustments were added to their signature law after the fact? Dozens.
Others have found similar concerns...
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/4BigProblems.pdf
http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/02/gang-immigration-bill-s-744-is-comprehensively-flawed/
Ridicule the conservative sources, but different points of view make it a debate.
Beyond making the distinction between an opinion piece and factual reporting, I've never been much for ridiculing sources. People believe what they want to believe anyway.
So why didn't the Speaker of the House bring it to the floor for debate clearly outlining what could or couldn't be done? Oh, I get it. This Administration is the first in the history of the country to assign a waiver, draft a signing statement or enact an Executive Order. No use in governing at all if the President will just change it? Gee. Amazing our great nation ever got this far, huh?
If passing laws is such folly, how in the world did this pass the Senate 68-32?
Apparently the best thing is to do nothing.
So why didn't the Speaker of the House bring it to the floor for debate clearly outlining what could or couldn't be done?
This.
What part of that do you have issue with?
Mainly the part where the current administration picks and chooses what to implement, what not to implement, and what to enforce or not.
Every administration makes these decisions. It is part of governing. You may not like it.
So why didn't the Speaker of the House bring it to the floor for debate clearly outlining what could or couldn't be done?
This.
So Boehner is the only leader in DC who is road-blocking bills from the other chamber? You know that's not remotely true, as the exact same could be said of Reid in the Senate.
There's around 200 examples - many written by D's in the House - of bills sitting idle under Reid's leadership...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/
So we can pick and choose specific bills to criticize in this regard, or be honest and say that both play this game.
So why didn't the Speaker of the House bring it to the floor for debate clearly outlining what could or couldn't be done?
This.
So Boehner is the only leader in DC who is road-blocking bills from the other chamber? You know that's not remotely true, as the exact same could be said of Reid in the Senate.
There's around 200 examples - many written by D's in the House - of bills sitting idle under Reid's leadership...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/
So we can pick and choose specific bills to criticize in this regard, or be honest and say that both play this game.
Too funny. This is the kind of response that usually draws your ire. At least your not defending him by actually defending him.
If you've ever read any of my posts, you know I am constantly reminding others to "be honest" by pointing out that that these kinds of political shenanigans cut both ways. So I agree with you of course. But when the speaker sanctimoniously wags his finger at the president for going beyond the scope of his authority, it would be nice if the speaker would actually take some action that is within his on this particular issue, otherwise his criticism rings rather hollow for me.
[Edited on 12/2/2014 by gondicar]
So why didn't the Speaker of the House bring it to the floor for debate clearly outlining what could or couldn't be done?
This.
So Boehner is the only leader in DC who is road-blocking bills from the other chamber? You know that's not remotely true, as the exact same could be said of Reid in the Senate.
There's around 200 examples - many written by D's in the House - of bills sitting idle under Reid's leadership...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/
So we can pick and choose specific bills to criticize in this regard, or be honest and say that both play this game.
Too funny. This is the kind of response that usually draws your ire. At least your not defending him by actually defending him.
If you've ever read any of my posts, you know I am constantly reminding others to "be honest" by pointing out that that these kinds of political shenanigans cut both ways. So I agree with you of course. But when the speaker sanctimoniously wags his finger at the president for going beyond the scope of his authority, it would be nice if the speaker would actually take some action that is within his on this particular issue, otherwise his criticism rings rather hollow for me.
[Edited on 12/2/2014 by gondicar]
Exactly! The GOP controls the House so what is Boehner afraid of? Why not submit the bill for discussion? Is he afraid of the GOP having to take a stand and come up with their own proposal?
Senate passes an immigration bill with incredible bi-partisan support in the current arena. The House, citing suspicion and outrage, doesn't even bring it to the floor. Meanwhile, the immigration issue continues.
President gets tired of nothing happening, says if you guys don't do something, I will. GOP responds with suspicion and outrage. Meanwhile, the immigration issue continues.
Apparently the best thing is to do nothing.
So we can pick and choose specific bills to criticize in this regard, or be honest and say that both play this game.
Both sides play this game and it sucks. Nothing gets done and it's beyond ridiculous.
So why didn't the Speaker of the House bring it to the floor for debate clearly outlining what could or couldn't be done?
This.
So Boehner is the only leader in DC who is road-blocking bills from the other chamber? You know that's not remotely true, as the exact same could be said of Reid in the Senate.
There's around 200 examples - many written by D's in the House - of bills sitting idle under Reid's leadership...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/
So we can pick and choose specific bills to criticize in this regard, or be honest and say that both play this game.
Too funny. This is the kind of response that usually draws your ire. At least your not defending him by actually defending him.
If you've ever read any of my posts, you know I am constantly reminding others to "be honest" by pointing out that that these kinds of political shenanigans cut both ways. So I agree with you of course. But when the speaker sanctimoniously wags his finger at the president for going beyond the scope of his authority, it would be nice if the speaker would actually take some action that is within his on this particular issue, otherwise his criticism rings rather hollow for me.
[Edited on 12/2/2014 by gondicar]
Exactly! The GOP controls the House so what is Boehner afraid of? Why not submit the bill for discussion? Is he afraid of the GOP having to take a stand and come up with their own proposal?
Boehner is in a bad place. He is either afraid that 1) enough of his caucus will vote for reform which will outrage a rabid base or 2) he will have to deal with an out of control bunch of tea party dissenters who will challenge him & make him look weak & not in control.
Expanding on point 2) above - We certainly can't forget when he wielded so little power over his fellow House members who shut down the government. It was ironic that it was a senator (Ted Cruz) who rounded up the GOP House members and had more influence on them than did the Speaker Of The House.
When all else fails - light a cigarette & hit the the suntan bed.
Dear America,
Hi there! My name is Brian Joyce. I'm a member of the media. Specifically, I'm a talk radio host. And as a member of the media, I owe you an apology.
In case you didn't notice -- and let's face it, the hope was that you wouldn't -- the long-awaited House Intelligence Report on Benghazi was released late Friday afternoon.
After two years of investigations, endless hours of hearings, and at least one concussion, the Republican-led Intelligence Committee has finally admitted what many of us knew all along: that the Obama administration did nothing wrong in Benghazi; that the White House, CIA and State Department did not deliberately mislead the American people on Benghazi; and that the Obama administration did everything it could to respond to Benghazi in a timely and appropriate manner.
Now, like many members of the media, I enjoy entertaining my audience with exciting topics and stimulating conversation. But unlike many members of the media, I will not resort to lies, myths and misinformation to do it. I will not accuse the President of doing things he never did, and I will not become so blinded with delusional, partisan hatred that I will say anything to get you to listen to my show.
And that's why I'd like to apologize to you, the people of the United States of America. It seems like I'm the exception to the norm.
For too long, too many of my colleagues have been spinning lies, myths and misinformation about Benghazi. We fixated on Benghazi. We obsessed with Benghazi. We wouldn't let Benghazi go. And it turns out we were wrong about almost everything concerning Benghazi.
We told you the President was covering up what happened in Benghazi. We told you the President didn't have a "shred of integrity" on Benghazi. We told you the President was providing "cover" for the terrorists who killed four Americans in Benghazi. We told you that the President could have helped the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi, but instead ordered the military to "stand down." Heck, we even told you the President's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, faked a concussion just to avoid testifying on Benghazi!
And after two years of trying our best to convince you that all these things were true, it turns out that we, the media, were the ones who were lying.
According to the House Intelligence Committee's report, there were no intelligence failures leading up to the attack; no stand-down order was ever given; intelligence on who carried out the attacks, and why, was muddled at best; and the White House did not deliberately mislead the American people on anything.
So the media was wrong, and the White House was right. Still, many of us in the media won't admit it. Therefore, I'd like to apologize to you.
Why does the media do this, and why are we too proud to admit it? Who knows. Maybe it's because some of us just aren't that bright. Maybe it's because some of us are so hooked on drugs that we can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. And maybe it's because some of us are so downright crazy, and come from such awful upbringings, that we're a danger to ourselves.
Regardless of what it is, I'd like to apologize. And I'd like to be able to tell you we'll never do it again, but that's not true. We're already doing it again.
We're telling you the President's executive orders on immigration are illegal and unconstitutional. We're telling you his executive orders on immigration are "unprecedented." We're telling you the President's "thuggish, illegal" immigration moves are nothing more than a cynical effort to back Republicans into a political corner. We're telling you these things despite the fact that we all know the President's executive orders on immigration are legal; they are constitutional; and they're not unprecedented. In fact, there have been 40 executive orders on immigration issued since 1956, spanning every presidency from Eisenhower's to Obama's.
But why tell you that, when it's so much easier to peddle in lies, myths, and misinformation?
By the way, did we tell you that the President is deliberately letting Ebola into America as retribution for slavery? Because he is, you know!
So again, on behalf of the media, please accept my apology. Some of us aren't that bright, some of us are crazy, and some of us are downright delusional. Still, that's no excuse for dumping our issues on you. We owe you more, and we should probably make a better effort to report on facts, rather than run with assumptions and half-truths. We should probably make a better effort to understand policy, before we attempt to comment on it. And we should probably also admit, once and for all, that the President was born in America. But don't hold your breath.
Therefore, please America, accept my apology on behalf of the media. Hopefully, sometime soon, we'll start to get things right on a more consistent basis. Hopefully we'll start to report on facts, rather than myths. Hopefully we won't get so hung up trying to prove the President is lying to you that we ourselves end up getting caught in a lie. Hopefully we'll do all those things.
In the meantime, did you hear about how President Obama canned Chuck Hagel because he's hell bent on weakening our once mighty American military? It's true, you know!
Just ask the media.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-joyce/an-open-letter-of-apology_b_6219340.html
