Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

[Laz]

The Bush 43 decision was because deporting the people to their home country would have put their lives at risk. Big difference from this decision.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Laz

The Bush 43 decision was because deporting the people to their home country would have put their lives at risk. Big difference from this decision.

Differences are irrelevant. He did it. Period.

It's either legal or it's not.

[JD Barleycorn]

I got news for you Doove, if you listen to Obama long enough you will hear him say exactly two different things about the same topic and this is for people just like you. You hear both but only believe the one you want. Remember both videos, if Obama said it then he said it even if he lies the next day.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Laz

The Bush 43 decision was because deporting the people to their home country would have put their lives at risk. Big difference from this decision.

Bush decision = to save lives
Odumbo decision = pander to voters

Yeah, it's easy to see how Doofus might equate those actions as being equal in law.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bush decision = to save lives
Odumbo decision = pander to voters

Yeah, it's easy to see how Doofus might equate those actions as being equal in law.

Show me the qualifier in the law that makes what you say is illegal, legal if it's to save lives.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

Show me the qualifier in the law that makes what you say is illegal, legal if it's to save lives.

First, cite W's executive order -- verbatim and w/ site.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

First, cite W's executive order -- verbatim and w/ site.

Nope. I'm not the one trying to defend it by saying "it's different".

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

Nope. I'm not the one trying to defend it by saying "it's different".

Nor have you proved W did what you said he did, Doofus.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nor have you proved W did what you said he did, Doofus.

That's somewhat irrelevant at this point, though i do think the daily show video points it out.

Nevertheless, the issue now is your apparent willingness to be a hypocrite, as proven in post #124.

You've shown your hand. Convince us you're not a willing hypocrite.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

That's somewhat irrelevant at this point, though i do think the daily show video points it out.

Nevertheless, the issue now is your apparent willingness to be a hypocrite, as proven in post #124.

You've shown your hand. Convince us you're not a willing hypocrite.

So your saying you cannot prove the substance of your argument heretofore, Doofus? Because the conjecture at post #124 is based entirely on your argument and not substantive proof.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So your saying you cannot prove the substance of your argument heretofore, Doofus? Because the conjecture at post #124 is based entirely on your argument and not substantive proof.

not that it matters to dumb shits like IB but they/he might as well chew on this


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12711



notice the wording IB .. AS THE PRESIDENT BY THE CONSTITUTION


now go fuck yourself

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Doove

Differences are irrelevant. He did it. Period.

It's either legal or it's not.

The US has always had a policy of giving people, who would be endangered by sending them back to their country of origin, sanctuary. That is an established policy that has been in effect for a long time.

There is no claim that the citizens of Mexico would be endangered by them returning to Mexico.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Laz

There is no claim that the citizens of Mexico would be endangered by them returning to Mexico.

BS, we are giving their drug dealers guns!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by WTF

BS, we are giving their drug dealers guns!

or get their heads lopped off

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Laz

The US has always had a policy of giving people, who would be endangered by sending them back to their country of origin, sanctuary. That is an established policy that has been in effect for a long time.

There is no claim that the citizens of Mexico would be endangered by them returning to Mexico.

You're right, it's not a matter of sanctuary. We seem to always err on the side of leniency with illegal aliens, as if we can afford to always absorb the monetary loss connected with taking in third world illegals. Maybe we could in the past; we can't anymore.

This country seems to have some sort of delusional idea that we can't go broke. People think the poem on the Statue of Liberty that says "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is the law of the land; it isn't, it's just a poem. We need to tell the huddled masses to stay home and the ones who came here illegally need to be deported. We're broke. At the rate we're going, we're all going to be huddled masses pretty soon.