Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Immigration debate - this will be fun to watch..Follow

#1 Nov 20 2014 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
So Obama trolled the GOP and I did not see any heads explode yet.

But it is still early and I am sure tomorrow will turn out to be more exciting.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Nov 21 2014 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Need to find some good Mitch McConnell cartoons. He's so comically droll I'd think he'd be a caricature's dream.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#3 Nov 21 2014 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Need to find some good Mitch McConnell cartoons.
This?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Nov 21 2014 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
There's a joke about frivolous lawsuits and healthcare costs in this whole mess somewhere. Wish I could think of one though. Smiley: rolleyes

Should be amusing seeing how this winds up. I don't think we'll be accomplishing anything over the next 2 years. Battle lines are drawn and such. Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5 Nov 21 2014 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
My favorite moment so far has been how sad and bemused Paul Ryan is that Obama has put tax cuts for the rich in danger by his reckless actions on immigration.

Teh Article wrote:
Ryan’s second complaint is more amusing. He tells the Washington Post that Obama is sadly harming his chances for Republican cooperation on tax reform.


By "tax reform", of course, he means tax cuts for the wealthy. I am positive President Obama is going to lose HOURS of sleep over that.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Nov 21 2014 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,188 posts
Pretzel Logic. Different topic but same logic: I was listening to NPR on my morning drive earlier this week and they were talking about the Keystone pipeline. Someone called in with a clear and concise explanation of why the President is opposing it. It seems that Warren Buffett recently sunk some money into trains, and he will now benefit if the pipeline doesn't happen because the oil will be shipped by train. The President is repaying Buffett for getting him re-elected by saying that he didn't mind paying higher taxes.

I almost had to pull over when I heard this, because of the giant flash of light I experienced when I heard this man pull this all together and I realized how I've been duped. It all comes down to Warren Buffett! The show's host asked, "You really think the President is doing this to repay one man for a favor?"

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#7 Nov 21 2014 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Not just one man. Warren Buffett.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#8 Nov 21 2014 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Silly me, I thought it was because Keystone Pipe Size Small had 12 spills in its first year of operation.

How wrong I was! It's because Warren Buffet needs his train money!
#9 Nov 21 2014 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Well, I am sad. No heads exploded.

Instead, we have this short story about how Obama changed his mind about being a king.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#10 Nov 24 2014 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Remember when H.W. forestalled deportations for about 1.5 million illegal immigrants through executive action? And when Reagan legalized the status of unauthorized children in 1986 through executive action?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Dec 03 2014 at 6:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Remember when H.W. forestalled deportations for about 1.5 million illegal immigrants through executive action? And when Reagan legalized the status of unauthorized children in 1986 through executive action?


Yeah. Some of us remember that those numbers weren't remotely accurate.

For those not willing to read the article, the upshot is that only about 40-50k people actually applied for the exemption. The 1.5 million figure did not come from the INS itself, but from a Democrat congressman during a hearing who tossed the number out (seemingly out of the blue) and asked it it was possible that many could be affected by the order, and got a positive response from an INS representative. Given that we can look at the actual numbers that were involved, it's odd that not only are the Obama apologists using an old estimate, they've grasped onto the most tenuous and inaccurate one possible. Well, not "odd", but more "intentionally deceptive".

Additionally, those executive orders were in association with actual changes to our immigration law passed by Congress. They did not create a new amnesty or change of immigration status out of thin air. They were targeted only at minors and spouses of those who were granted legal status by the 1986 law. Comparing those is a huge stretch, to say the least. Sure, they're all executive orders. And they all have to do with immigrants and deportation processes. But that's where the similarities end. Obama is not making a minor implementation change to an existing recently passed law to fill in a gap in said law. He's just deciding out of the blue that the law should work differently than it did before.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Dec 03 2014 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Additionally, those executive orders were in association with actual changes to our immigration law passed by Congress. They did not create a new amnesty or change of immigration status out of thin air. They were targeted only at minors and spouses of those who were granted legal status by the 1986 law. Comparing those is a huge stretch, to say the least. Sure, they're all executive orders. And they all have to do with immigrants and deportation processes. But that's where the similarities end.

Yeah, crazy. Comparing presidential executive orders about immigrants is like comparing apples and apples.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#13 Dec 04 2014 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Remember when H.W. forestalled deportations for about 1.5 million illegal immigrants through executive action? And when Reagan legalized the status of unauthorized children in 1986 through executive action?

Sure, they're all executive orders. And they all have to do with immigrants and deportation processes. But that's where the similarities end.

Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, crazy. Comparing presidential executive orders about immigrants is like comparing apples and apples.
Maybe gbaji is just having a rare sarcasm moment.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#14 Dec 04 2014 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Potaytoe, potahtoe, sarcasm, aneurysm.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Dec 04 2014 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Additionally, those executive orders were in association with actual changes to our immigration law passed by Congress. They did not create a new amnesty or change of immigration status out of thin air. They were targeted only at minors and spouses of those who were granted legal status by the 1986 law. Comparing those is a huge stretch, to say the least. Sure, they're all executive orders. And they all have to do with immigrants and deportation processes. But that's where the similarities end.

Yeah, crazy. Comparing presidential executive orders about immigrants is like comparing apples and apples.


More like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo because "they're both cars!".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Dec 04 2014 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
More like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo because "they're both cars!".
No, apple to apple was correct.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Dec 04 2014 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
More like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo because "they're both cars!".

Nope. Not at all like that. I mean, we can continue making idiotic metaphors, though, if you want: It's like comparing Archduke Franz Ferdinand's mustache to Wilford Brimley's mustache! It's like comparing kumquats to quarts of ***! It's like comparing ********* to a test that tickles!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Dec 04 2014 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
It's like comparing **** to **** because they both have 4 stars! Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19 Dec 04 2014 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
More like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo because "they're both cars!".
No, apple to apple was correct.


Sure. If we're baking a pie and debating whether to use Granny Smith or Red Delicious, then the analogy fits. I'm betting you were going for the common "two things that are identical" angle though. Which is why you're wrong and I'm right (well, one of the many many reasons).

The differences between the use of executive action in these cases is relevant to the cases themselves. Just pointing out the similarities while ignoring those differences is misleading at best.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Dec 04 2014 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It's like comparing **** to **** because they both have 4 stars! Smiley: nod

Those aren't curses though, you just typed four stars. ******.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#21 Dec 04 2014 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. If we're baking a pie and debating whether to use Granny Smith or Red Delicious, then the analogy fits.
So changing parameters of other people's arguments is okay as long as it isn't done specifically to you. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Dec 04 2014 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
There was some mild talk over the defunding DHS as Republicans take both chambers.

Oh my deity, did Obama set them up for dismantling the security apparatus?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#23 Dec 04 2014 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. If we're baking a pie and debating whether to use Granny Smith or Red Delicious, then the analogy fits.
So changing parameters of other people's arguments is okay as long as it isn't done specifically to you. Smiley: laugh


Are you saying that Granny Smith and Red Delicious are not two types of apples? How is it changing parameters to point out that not all apples are identical, nor are all apples equally applicable to all food applications. And, at the risk of adding relevance here, this directly ties into my argument that not all executive orders involving immigration are identical, nor equally applicable to all immigration situations.

See how that works?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Dec 04 2014 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
See how that works?
As a deflection from your mistake? Yeah, yesterday. Why?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Dec 04 2014 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Obama is not making a minor implementation change to an existing recently passed law to fill in a gap in said law. He's just deciding out of the blue that the law should work differently than it did before.
Except in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. Remember all of the minor changes to the ACA that President Obama made? Congress complained that it should have gone back through the Congress to implement the very same delay that they were asking for. So the scope of his executive orders don't matter, the reaction is the same.
#26 Dec 04 2014 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
If you're baking a pie, definitely Granny smith.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 228 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)