PDA

View Full Version : Immigration


Southpaw2012
06-30-2014, 04:04 PM
"If Congress will not do their jobs, at least we will. I will adopt those recommendations without further delay." -Obama

As Elizabeth Foley wisely states, a few months overdue, "We officially now have a dictator."

Obama refuses to acknowledge that conflict between the two chambers of the Legislative Branch and the gridlock with the Executive Branch, is a feature of our Constitutional Republic, and not a problem. Of course, when you're a dictator, nothing matters because you're going to make it happen anyways. Quite frankly, this is scary. If you aren't furious with what this administration has been up to, you're either living in a basement, or you're a moron. Immigration isn't a black/white situation. It's a situation in which there are a variety of opinions on what should be done and if Obama wants to piss off the American people even more than he already has, he will continue to go forward and sign an immigration bill into effect.

Sarevok
06-30-2014, 05:22 PM
If you aren't furious with what this administration has been up to, you're either living in a basement, or you're a moron.
Is it ok if I submit the third option of not living in your country and not having a clue what you're talking about?

eht slat meit
06-30-2014, 06:05 PM
Is it ok if I submit the third option of not living in your country and not having a clue what you're talking about?

Basically it comes down to Congress not allowing legislation to pass on "immigration reform" laws in our country. Obama believes that it is Congress's job to allow this legislation to pass. Congress disagrees.

Talking points ensue.

fdsaf3
06-30-2014, 11:29 PM
Weirdly enough, I don't entirely disagree with Southpaw. This...this is a weird feeling.

That said, the bottom line is that Congress has been stymieing the Obama administration since he got into office (Party of No and all of that). First the plan was to prevent Obama from doing anything, and thus prevent him from winning reelection. Now in the second term we see crap like dragging on fights about the ACA and other policy issues.

It might be a feature of our government structure to have these gridlocks, but it shouldn't be the default.

eht slat meit
06-30-2014, 11:50 PM
It might be a feature of our government structure to have these gridlocks, but it shouldn't be the default.

While I agree, the executive order was never meant to be a substitute for Congress or a "get out of gridlock free" card. Quite frankly, it's not the job of Congress to accede to the will of the president and never has been, and is a blatant violation of the separation and balance of powers to act otherwise.

That's a lesson that both sides in this matter need to learn, because it clearly isn't just the problem of the sitting administration.

GonzoTheGreat
07-01-2014, 03:49 AM
I think that the best solution would be if the USA got itself a more sensible electorate. Could immigration help with that?

Figbiscuit
07-01-2014, 05:47 AM
Immigration isn't a black/white situation.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself....

eht slat meit
07-01-2014, 07:16 AM
I think that the best solution would be if the USA got itself a more sensible electorate. Could immigration help with that?

Having the most sensible electorate in the world won't do you a lick of good when both parties in the two-party dominated system offer nothing but garbage to vote for.

You know the system is broke when we are constantly being forced to vote on the "lesser of two evils"

GonzoTheGreat
07-01-2014, 07:26 AM
You know the system is broke when we are constantly being forced to vote on the "lesser of two evils"
Yeah, we're definitely lucky over here in the Netherlands where we generally have the possibility of choosing the "lesser of seventeen evils". Though to be fair, at the municipal elections I usually only have three options to pick from.

ShadowbaneX
07-01-2014, 10:09 AM
I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself....

Well, partially, but it's also a Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc, etc.

As for the OP, good for Obama. I'd more likely feel strange about it if a) I was American or b) (and as I mentioned in the previous "oh god, the sky is falling" American Politics thread) that Congress in general and the Republicans in particular have shown no interest in passing anything or working with anyone.

For all the crap that your political system has, I'm going to make a very scary point here, your Founding Fathers saw a time where just such a situation, ie either one or both of your ruling Houses were non-Fuctional, and put in a clause where your Head of Government and State would have the Executive Authority necessary to act should the standard system become non-functional.

You're scared he's using his Executive Authority? You should but not as in it's being used, but you should be more afraid as it means that everything leading up to it is so utterly useless as to be a non-entity.

You want to be so afraid that you want to start using loaded terms like 'dictator', that's fine, it makes your fear mongering even more obvious. The people you really should be scared of are those that allowed the situation to devolve to the point where one man alone has to ask, because it seems that everyone else is more interested in playing at politics, rather than actually doing their jobs.

eht slat meit
07-01-2014, 06:03 PM
I'm going to make a very scary point here, your Founding Fathers saw a time where just such a situation, ie either one or both of your ruling Houses were non-Fuctional, and put in a clause where your Head of Government and State would have the Executive Authority necessary to act should the standard system become non-functional.

In point of fact, they did no such thing.

Executive orders have not traditionally been used for that purpose, nor were they designed for that purpose, nor do they have the power to be used in that capacity. Any attempt to use them in that capacity is an overstep and a violation of the separation of powers.

To suggest that the executive branch has always had supreme authority based on "executive orders" is asinine and ignores how executive orders actually function.

If Obama HAS or intends to be using them that way, then Obama should be taken to task for extreme overreach. I'm not talking about Boehner's boneheaded lawsuits, but serious consequences levied against him, because he certainly knows better.

Sodas
07-01-2014, 07:34 PM
"If Congress will not do their jobs, at least we will. I will adopt those recommendations without further delay." -Obama

As Elizabeth Foley wisely states, a few months overdue, "We officially now have a dictator."

Obama refuses to acknowledge that conflict between the two chambers of the Legislative Branch and the gridlock with the Executive Branch, is a feature of our Constitutional Republic, and not a problem. Of course, when you're a dictator, nothing matters because you're going to make it happen anyways. Quite frankly, this is scary. If you aren't furious with what this administration has been up to, you're either living in a basement, or you're a moron. Immigration isn't a black/white situation. It's a situation in which there are a variety of opinions on what should be done and if Obama wants to piss off the American people even more than he already has, he will continue to go forward and sign an immigration bill into effect.

Usurping the power of congress would be grounds for censure, if that is indeed what he plans to do. At this point, he needs to go. The winds of politics are changing enough that it could happen. I'd say impeach for Benghazi and go from there.

ShadowbaneX
07-01-2014, 10:46 PM
Fair enough. I'll fully admit I'm not hugely up to date on the exact nature of the American political structure, but try to look at it from another angle, if Congress is utterly unable to do something, by virtue of the fact that one of the parties is doing everything in it's power to render the system useless for petty reasons, then your Head of State and Head of Government should (and does) have the authority to act.

This isn't "extreme overrreach" this is taking a step when a bunch of spoiled brats of politicians are refusing to do their job.

eht slat meit
07-01-2014, 10:54 PM
This isn't "extreme overrreach" this is taking a step when a bunch of spoiled brats of politicians are refusing to do their job.

You are under the mistaken impression that it is their "job" to do what the president tells them to do. Nowhere is such a duty outlined or even intended in the constitution, which very explicitly states WHAT their job is.

Quite frankly, that particular bit of tripe is pure Democrat talking point, another one of many takes on the party of obstruction nonsense.

Again, ANY attempt by one branch of government to take the substitute their own power for that of another branch of the government IS an extreme overreach as it is a blatant violation of the constitution, which provides the foundation for the system of law and government in the United States.

ShadowbaneX
07-01-2014, 11:13 PM
You're under the mistaken impression that I'm under a mistaken impression. I don't think they have to do what the president tells them, I think they need to represent their constituents and do something that will benefit the citizens of the United States.

As it is the only thing Republican members are attempting to do is prevent anything from happening, they have in fact attempted to shut down the Governement, hold it hostage.

In the face of such obstructionism, isn't it the President's duty to act? If Congress or the Senate is unable to govern, someone has to.

eht slat meit
07-01-2014, 11:34 PM
I don't think they have to do what the president tells them, I think they need to represent their constituents and do something that will benefit the citizens of the United States.

And again, you're attempting to define "representing their constitutents" as "representing what the president wants". The two are NOT one and the same, and illegal immigration reform along the lines of what Democrats want is ONLY to the benefit of the Democrats and NOT to the USA.

As it is the only thing Republican members are attempting to do is prevent anything from happening, they have in fact attempted to shut down the Governement, hold it hostage.

Correction: Prevent anything "obama wants" from happening. Yeah, i agree, that's juvenile and non-productive as you cannot have a negotiation with that mentality, but quite frankly, to pretend they don't want to do ANYTHING is a flagrant lie and ignores an abundance of facts. Oh, they DO want to pass plenty of their OWN legislation.

However, the prevailing Democrat claim is that they don't want to do anything, so that they can be presented as a party that isn't doing their job.

That street runs both ways.

In the face of such obstructionism, isn't it the President's duty to act?

No, and it is a blatant violation of the constitution to do so. Even more so in face of the fact that it's completely self-serving and strictly in the interests of a single party rather than the American people as a whole.

Sorry, but the Hall isn't here to serve Obamaida, and the Barac'arn is not a Eurolander king.

Obstructing the will of the president is not a failure to do one's job.

The Republican party as a whole is a bunch of whiny, shrill idiots, but in this they are completely right.

ShadowbaneX
07-01-2014, 11:57 PM
and again you're conflating Obama and the Democrats.

There are plenty of bills and elements they're looking to pass, some of which might well be valid reforms, but are for some reason are to be simply vetoed on the simple fact that Obama is the President.

Not everything that is currently put forward by Obama or the Democrats is bad and wrong, that's right-wing bias. Also, shutting down the government? How is that in any way a good move? It might be a good 'political' move in that it will prevent 'the enemy from winning' ie passing a law that they're looking to impliment, but when it's something as valid as health care, it's really just sour grapes.

Even the shitty ass system that they implimented is an improvement over what was there previously and, hopefully down the line, it can be improved so as to actually meet up with the rest of the world. I mean, my new niece is 6 weeks old. If my sister-in-law was down there she'd have the leave her and head back to work now and I cannot even fathom that.

If it's a blatant violation, then why does he have the power? Also, if the situation was reversed would you still be decrying a Republican President for using his Executive Powers in such a fashion?

Sodas
07-02-2014, 02:54 AM
Fair enough. I'll fully admit I'm not hugely up to date on the exact nature of the American political structure, but try to look at it from another angle, if Congress is utterly unable to do something, by virtue of the fact that one of the parties is doing everything in it's power to render the system useless for petty reasons, then your Head of State and Head of Government should (and does) have the authority to act.

No, it doesn't.

One branch of Government cannot usurp another branch powers in it's governing role. Congress deals with creation of laws, the executive enforces them. Amnesty is not executing a law. It's creating a new law or changing a preexisting law. Therefore, an encroachment upon the Powers of Congress.

Any step beyond that is a step towards Fascism or a Totalitarian state, where one branch rules over the others.

That won't be hard for Republicans to sell to congressional Democrats who take their oath of office seriously (if there are any). Either way, Republicans hold the House and the mid term election polls look favorable for Republicans.

On top of that, the Judicial just smashed the Democrats, Obama's Judicial appointment stacking, abortion buffer zones (Mass), and Obama mandates of abortion drugs to private family open companies (Hobby Lobby).

Like I said ... the winds are changing, but that doesn't mean anyone should be comfortable right now. The Democrats are helping the Terrorists win at this point (see head fake by Obama towards the Immigration issue) by avoiding the real issues.

These terrorists want to kill, rape, torture every man, woman and child in the US. They want to treat women like cattle. They want to strap their children with bombs so they can blow up other little children in the marketplaces.

What other people in the history of the Earth has ever done something so cruel? And if you oppose them, you will be next unless someone stops them.

GonzoTheGreat
07-02-2014, 04:18 AM
In the face of such obstructionism, isn't it the President's duty to act? If Congress or the Senate is unable to govern, someone has to.
Moral duty, perhaps. Then again, it might be better in the long run for him to sit back and publicly point out that legally he is not allowed to overrule Congress, so they should do their duty.

If he does decide that he has to break the law in the interests of the USA, then he should do so openly, and afterwards insist on being put on trial.


These terrorists want to kill, rape, torture every man, woman and child in the US. They want to treat women like cattle. They want to strap their children with bombs so they can blow up other little children in the marketplaces.
So what?
Why do them the extreme and undeserved honor of pretending that they have any chance at all of actually reaching those goals?

Laugh about their megalomania, and arrest them when they do the relatively small mischief that they are capable of.

I can think of a reason to take them as seriously as is happening now: to line the pockets of the arms manufacturers.
Can you come up with some even remotely convincing scenario in which ISIS would manage to conquer the USA?

I am reminded of the scenario I cooked up to show that Saddam was a threat to the USA. I'll reproduce it here:
One of the feats of his younger days was swimming across the Tigris (or the Euphrates, can't remember which) to escape arrest after a failed coup. In later days, that was repeated as a public event where Saddam, surrounded by bodyguards, swam a bit.
So he could take his army into the Tigris, swim to the sea, swim lengthwise over the Persian Gulf*, turn somewhat to the left once he reached the Indian Ocean, swim around India, dive when crossing Indonesia (which has so many islands that swimming on the surface would risk detection) and then cross half the Pacific. When he comes to Hawaii he could go ashore, clean out his weapons, conquer those islands, leave a dozen or so men, and reenter the water on the other side. Then he swims across the other half of the Pacific, comes out of the ocean at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge, and the rest would have been history.
For some reason he did not take this road (canal?) to victory, though.

Can you come up with a less ridiculous way for these followers of the god of Abraham to win?

What other people in the history of the Earth has ever done something so cruel? And if you oppose them, you will be next unless someone stops them.
If you study history just a little bit, then I am sure you can easily find lots of examples of similar cruelty. One such example can be found in the American South before the Civil War, but all around the world there are plenty of others to choose from. Of course, the details would be slightly different, but the overall level of cruelty wouldn't be.


* Then called Arabian Gulf by Americans for political reasons, just as happened to the Freedom Fries.

ShadowbaneX
07-02-2014, 07:57 AM
These terrorists want to kill, rape, torture every man, woman and child in the US. They want to treat women like cattle. They want to strap their children with bombs so they can blow up other little children in the marketplaces.

Hyperbole, Slippery Slope, Fear Mongering or whatever other fallacy that applies. I'm probably getting the exact one wrong cause I'm just up and not fully awake year.

Lets look at it another way, there are probably more people in the US that want to kill and torture all Muslims in the world because a tiny minority of them happen to be terrorists.

As for a few other points, women should have control of their bodies, that includes having access to birth control medication.

As for the ludicrous notion that attempting to break through the ass backwards deadlock that's currently going through your Houses is utterly moronic. This might shock you, but many other nations have laws that go beyond the limits that congress has and, shockingly enough, they haven't devolved in to Fascism or Totalitarianism, probably because, they don't quite reach the utter inept and contempt that the American elected officials reach.

You're a Godwin-ism away from the perfect internet argument there Sodas. I know that I'm not perfectly familiar with the finer points of the American political power structure, but I do know when I see a few people using hate and fear to drive outdated agendas.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 07:56 PM
Lets look at it another way, there are probably more people in the US that want to kill and torture all Muslims in the world because a tiny minority of them happen to be terrorists.


A terribly incorrect statement.

Not just because it's provable with poll numbers, but because Judeo-Christian values do not allow for murder or torture.

It's not like you live here and ask people SBX, so let's not play this game.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 08:27 PM
Btw, first hand picture at last nights Immigration "rally" / protest near here in Murrieta.

http://s30.postimg.org/gj09549y9/1545791_853997904614538_7014109098750921055_n.jpg

ShadowbaneX
07-02-2014, 08:41 PM
A terribly incorrect statement.

Not just because it's provable with poll numbers, but because Judeo-Christian values do not allow for murder or torture.

It's not like you live here and ask people SBX, so let's not play this game.

No, actually I'm fairly certain that it's a true statement. Just because you're Judeo-Christian doesn't mean that there aren't others that are more than happy to "glass the middle east" or "nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark" or any number of other similar genocidal statements that I've heard about the situation over there.

You want to go hyperbole on "kill all the men, rape all the women and slaughter all the children" then accept that it's not nearly as black and white as you might think. Also that and that there are God Fearing, Obama Hating, Bible Thumping, Bleed Red, White and Blue Americans that want nothing more than to do to the Muslims that you claim they want to do to you.

You want to play the rhetoric game and scare the crap out of people. Fine, I get that. I'm gonna show the boogie man under the bed for exactly what it is.

eht slat meit
07-02-2014, 09:16 PM
There are plenty of bills and elements they're looking to pass, some of which might well be valid reforms, but are for some reason are to be simply vetoed on the simple fact that Obama is the President.

I'm perfectly aware of that and acknowledge that the bias openly and hostilely exists, and I'll broaden that statement to its correct dimension - there is legislation put forth by both sides that is shut down simply because it was put forth by the other side. It's childish tit for tat at the government level.

Also, shutting down the government? How is that in any way a good move?

A bad one, quite frankly - it was a poor attempt to force Obama to do something which he, like the Republicans have no intention of doing: negotiate in good faith.

It might be a good 'political' move in that it will prevent 'the enemy from winning' ie passing a law that they're looking to impliment, but when it's something as valid as health care, it's really just sour grapes.

Obamacare is not valid in any sense of improving the system the way it was claimed to, and should not be passed off as "healthcare reform" but "health insurance reform" which most certainly are not the same thing.

Even the shitty ass system that they implimented is an improvement over what was there previously and, hopefully down the line, it can be improved so as to actually meet up with the rest of the world.

... I'm sure roughly 5 million previously uninsured will agree with you. The other 44 million that Obama flipped the bird to likely won't.

If it's a blatant violation, then why does he have the power?

He doesn't. The fact that you CAN do something doesn't mean it's appropriate for you to do it or that you should get away with doing it. Honestly, the Elaida comparison, tongue in cheek or not, was a good one. Sadly, he will probably do it, get away with it, and the reason it will happen is because the Republicans are waiting their turn to use the precedent he set to ignore the system of government established here.

Let's be clear on that - our country was established under a government that was vehemently opposed to any part of government having the level of power of a king. The constitution which establishes the governments roles put in place a series of checks and balances so that no one of the three branches could simply cancel out another whenever it felt "cause".


Also, if the situation was reversed would you still be decrying a Republican President for using his Executive Powers in such a fashion?

I spent 8 years telling Bush and his administration to go fuck themselves in the comfortable anonymity of the internet, why would I do any less for Obama and the Democrats?

I realize you don't know me from Adam, so let me introduce myself. I'm "eht slat meit" or "asshole" if you prefer, and among many things I am not, Democrat and Republican are first.

I consider both to be corrupt artifacts that need to go the way of the dinosaur.

ShadowbaneX
07-02-2014, 10:00 PM
He doesn't. The fact that you CAN do something doesn't mean it's appropriate for you to do it or that you should get away with doing it. Honestly, the Elaida comparison, tongue in cheek or not, was a good one. Sadly, he will probably do it, get away with it, and the reason it will happen is because the Republicans are waiting their turn to use the precedent he set to ignore the system of government established here.

Let's be clear on that - our country was established under a government that was vehemently opposed to any part of government having the level of power of a king. The constitution which establishes the governments roles put in place a series of checks and balances so that no one of the three branches could simply cancel out another whenever it felt "cause".

Actually, no, still, it's not. You might perceive it to be, but get this, Elaida is a book character written explicitly to be inept and useless that she overthrows a properly elected character (you're not a birther are you?) so she makes things worse on her watch so that someone more moderate can step and clean things up. Oddly, for your comparison, Bush fits far more accurately then Obama does, what given the whole thing with Florida and the election.

As for the Powers, yeah, I get the whole checks and balances thing. My point is, if he's not supposed to have Executive Authority, who the hell gave it to him? I mean, if he's got it as one of the powers at his disposal, obviously someone(s) in the past foresaw a time in which it was good for your Head of Government and Head of State to have such power.

Actually, being unlazy and reading up on it, namely wiki, (yeah, sue me, I'm not going to go get a book on it), it looks like the President isn't just authorized, he's forced to act under threat on Impeachment "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Interesting. Perhaps that's the republicans game plan. If they can delay things and make it so that laws aren't faithfully executed they can get him Impeached. Sounds about as sane as any other move they've done recently.

eht slat meit
07-02-2014, 10:56 PM
this, Elaida is a book character written explicitly to be inept and useless that she overthrows a properly elected character (you're not a birther are you?)

Birthers are a match for Truthers and Deathers in pure stupidity.

My comparison to Elaida was not based on ineptitude or uselessness. It was based on taking actions that she had no power to take and were only allowed because the Hall permitted it to happen. Egwene made a few points on that, as I recall.

My point is, if he's not supposed to have Executive Authority

... no, you aren't getting it. He has executive authority, and the powers implicit in that granted by the constitution. That authority is executive, not legislative, and does not extend to performing those powers granted to that branch.
There is no 'overlap' in that. It's referred to as 'separation of powers'

I mean, if he's got it as one of the powers at his disposal, obviously someone(s) in the past foresaw a time in which it was good for your Head of Government and Head of State to have such power.

An executive order has very limited scope, and taking it beyond that scope is not a power anyone gave to him. If he moves past that scope, he has violated the constitution and his authority. Doing something doesn't mean you had the right to do it, or in this case, the constitutional authority.

(yeah, sue me, I'm not going to go get a book on it), it looks like the President isn't just authorized, he's forced to act under threat on Impeachment "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

You are incorrect in interpreting it that way. The EXACT wording is: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That powers and duties of office are outlined in the constitution. Step beyond them, and he's overstepping. Bear in mind that standard you're attempting to impose is not one the president has adhered to as evidenced by DOMA and immigration related issues.

You're probably referring to the "take care clause" which states:

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

and grants him zero exception from the law of the land that is that constitution. Under THAT law, his powers to faithfully execute are strictly and solely limited to those which he is explicitly granted.

That's a key point here - the constitution states exactly what duties and powers each branch has. That execution may only take place within the scope of those duties and powers - it does not vest the president with king-like powers that grant him authority over the Law of the Land in respect to the other two branches. The constitution is the final authority, the president is not.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 11:45 PM
Lets look at it another way, there are probably more people in the US that want to kill and torture all Muslims in the world because a tiny minority of them happen to be terrorists.

Emphasis added : Mine.

No, actually I'm fairly certain that it's a true statement.

Based upon what evidence.

Sodas
07-03-2014, 12:13 AM
Btw, to dispell the myth, Muslim's right here in the US feel "no Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism" according to Pew research.

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

The better question is why should a Canadian try to impugn the honor of Americans by trying to equate what the US "thinks" (based upon a clearly out of touch viewpoint) to what Muslims actually do to their women.

You of course everyone educated should know what Sharia law is.

That part where women have to be covered, can't drive. Can't vote. They get their private parts cut off without anesthesia.

Yeah, that has OVERWHELMING support in the Muslim community.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 12:30 AM
didn't I mention that above? "Glass the middle east"? "Nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark"? Granted, hyperbolic statements, but that seems to fit right in with your previous statements. So either we take 'em both at face value or realize that both are utter bullshit and we actually start talking about something more worthwhile....like watching paint dry or the grass grow.

Certainly better than talking hyperbolic, slippery slope, fear mongering politics.

fdsaf3
07-03-2014, 12:42 AM
That's a key point here - the constitution states exactly what duties and powers each branch has. That execution may only take place within the scope of those duties and powers - it does not vest the president with king-like powers that grant him authority over the Law of the Land in respect to the other two branches. The constitution is the final authority, the president is not.

Nitpick time: people always talk about the Constitution as the be-all, end-all of this type of discussion, but there is in fact a bunch of functional elements of how the U.S. government works established outside of the Constitution. For example, the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/).

Sodas
07-03-2014, 12:42 AM
To SBX,

Did I say that?

No.

Stop building straw men. Try giving me that evidence instead.

Sodas
07-03-2014, 12:50 AM
... no, you aren't getting it. He has executive authority, and the powers implicit in that granted by the constitution. That authority is executive, not legislative, and does not extend to performing those powers granted to that branch.
There is no 'overlap' in that. It's referred to as 'separation of powers'

and

That's a key point here - the constitution states exactly what duties and powers each branch has. That execution may only take place within the scope of those duties and powers - it does not vest the president with king-like powers that grant him authority over the Law of the Land in respect to the other two branches. The constitution is the final authority, the president is not.

Bumped for sheer awesomeness.

Like the American saying goes ... and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 07:21 AM
Like the American saying goes ... and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If it is broke and people don't know it, what then?

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 07:23 AM
These terrorists want to kill, rape, torture every man, woman and child in the US. They want to treat women like cattle. They want to strap their children with bombs so they can blow up other little children in the marketplaces.

Could have fooled me.

Sodas
07-03-2014, 05:00 PM
Could have fooled me.

How does talking about terrorists have anything to do with a policy of what to do about them?

At this point, you have severely undercut any respect I have for you.

eht slat meit
07-03-2014, 06:40 PM
Nitpick time: people always talk about the Constitution as the be-all, end-all of this type of discussion, but there is in fact a bunch of functional elements of how the U.S. government works established outside of the Constitution. For example, the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/).

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. The Federal Register is little more than a useful diary that keeps track of rules laid down down by agencies whose existence was established either by one of the three branches of government or the constitution itself, and of which rules are required to be in keeping with the laws set down by the legislative branch set down by the constitution.

This is not a circle of authority here - there is a definitive hierarchy and agency rules are the metaphorical sandy bottom of the food chain.

So while I agree that you're correct - the constitution certainly is not the be-all - it is the framework, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me unless you are under the mistaken impression that I believe the constitution is some sort of gospel holy text like a Bible.

eht slat meit
07-03-2014, 06:47 PM
If it is broke and people don't know it, what then?

The American people aren't stupid. Say what you will about our educational system, but it hasn't fallen that far yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you've stated it somewhere along the line - you aren't from the USA. As such, we don't expect you to have an intimate knowledge of how our government works, just as you don't expect us to know the finer points of law whatever Canadian, French or Russian government you may hail from.

That said, like your own country, I am sure, our schools teach us how our OWN government works. This isn't something I can teach you in a few bullet points of a forum argument, even if I were trained in the fine art of instructing students. Nor is it something you can learn from the media or Wikipedia. One is full of inaccurate garbage spewed forth by both parties, while the other is a good starting point for research, but is not known for showing a depth of understanding.

While *you* may not know it, and while partisans may not wish to *acknowledge* it, people know when it is broken and it has been for awhile now. The ugly truth is both parties are part of the problem, and both want their respective voting demographics to turn their heads to their own abuses while screaming in horrified outraged over the atrocities against law and good sense committed by the opposition.

Why? Because, to put it bluntly, they're a bunch of fucking liars who think paying lip service to ideals justifies their behavior.

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 07:00 PM
How does talking about terrorists have anything to do with a policy of what to do about them?

At this point, you have severely undercut any respect I have for you.

That's fine because I've lost all I have for you; I couldn't care less about what you think of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but where I have a problem is the insistance that your opinion is the correct one. You don't like the guy that's in charge, that's fine, stop trying to force it down other people's throats.

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 07:10 PM
Right, so where Sodas just said that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" implying that the current system down there is fine, you're just saying it's broke as all shit. So which is it?

Also, yeah, I'm not American, you know, slightly evidenced by the fact that my location lists me being Canadian, but you know, while I'm not all that knowledgeable about the system down there, anyone can see that there are signs that things aren't working. Health care is a big glaring one. So when someone goes out of their way to disparage someone who's trying to solve one of the most glaring errors currently in the American system, it sorta irks me.

That said, the system being implimented down there is far from decent, but as you said, both major parties are more concerned with fighting each other, rather than improving things, so, no surprise.

Anyway, one thing is sure, I'm reminded why I typically avoid political threads. Can we now let this shit die? It's a pointless waste of time, and the bickering upsets the Phartes.

Nazbaque
07-03-2014, 07:36 PM
Anyway, one thing is sure, I'm reminded why I typically avoid political threads. Can we now let this shit die? It's a pointless waste of time, and the bickering upsets the Phartes.

Are you kidding? Watching them prove their inferiority is practically porn for the ego.

eht slat meit
07-03-2014, 08:26 PM
Right, so where Sodas just said that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" implying that the current system down there is fine, you're just saying it's broke as all shit. So which is it?

Politicians aren't "the system", and it's the politicians that are broken, not the system.

Health care is a big glaring one. So when someone goes out of their way to disparage someone who's trying to solve one of the most glaring errors currently in the American system, it sorta irks me.

We agree that it needs fixing; we disagree that someone is undergoing a good faith act of attempting to fix it.

Anyway, one thing is sure, I'm reminded why I typically avoid political threads. Can we now let this shit die?

If you really want to let this shit die, then probably the last thing you should be doing is arguing points as noted above.

I mean, if you want the last word, ask for it, but I'm in an immigration thread to... y'know... discuss the politics and practicalities of immigration, something that has gone slightly off track into other political conversation in typical intarwebz fashion.

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 08:56 PM
I mean, if you want the last word, ask for it, but I'm in an immigration thread to... y'know... discuss the politics and practicalities of immigration, something that has gone slightly off track into other political conversation in typical intarwebz fashion.

Don't care about the last word, I can about pointless and aggressive arguments. This isn't a dicussion about politics and immigration, this is: what happened is wrong and everyone that agrees with it is wrong. There's little dicussion in that.

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 08:58 PM
que?

eht slat meit
07-03-2014, 10:14 PM
Don't care about the last word, I can about pointless and aggressive arguments. This isn't a dicussion about politics and immigration, this is: what happened is wrong and everyone that agrees with it is wrong. There's little dicussion in that.

Qual?

Plenty of discussion lies in the attempt to lay unilateral blame or to suggest that any side has the moral authority or power to dictate to the other what they will and will not do.

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2014, 10:48 PM
yeah, but it's a really bad form of arguing. Fallacies and all that stuff. The better debates actually have logic and reasonable points and all that crazy stuff.

eht slat meit
07-04-2014, 12:53 PM
yeah, but it's a really bad form of arguing. Fallacies and all that stuff. The better debates actually have logic and reasonable points and all that crazy stuff.

Are you trying to tell me that there is no way to logically or reasonably support arguments one way or another as to whether anyone has the moral authority or power to dictate to the political opposition what they will or will not do?

ShadowbaneX
07-04-2014, 02:38 PM
Are you trying to tell me that there is no way to logically or reasonably support arguments one way or another as to whether anyone has the moral authority or power to dictate to the political opposition what they will or will not do?

This is Theoryland. I'm saying that the better arguments that I've been involved with here are the ones that have logic and reason to them and not "I'm right and you're an idiot so shut up".

Also, notice how on top we're not? ;)

Terez
07-04-2014, 08:37 PM
Btw, first hand picture at last nights Immigration "rally" / protest near here in Murrieta.

http://s30.postimg.org/gj09549y9/1545791_853997904614538_7014109098750921055_n.jpg
Are you on this video?

http://on.msnbc.com/1jLAJBo

eht slat meit
07-04-2014, 10:51 PM
This is Theoryland. I'm saying that the better arguments that I've been involved with here are the ones that have logic and reason to them and not "I'm right and you're an idiot so shut up".

Also, notice how on top we're not? ;)

I don't believe that either of us has brought the discussion down to that level, so I'm not sure where your concern is.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 05:03 AM
That's fine because I've lost all I have for you; I couldn't care less about what you think of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but where I have a problem is the insistance that your opinion is the correct one. You don't like the guy that's in charge, that's fine, stop trying to force it down other people's throats.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree. It's plainly obvious you can't handle people disagreeing with you.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 05:04 AM
Are you on this video?

http://on.msnbc.com/1jLAJBo

No.

Me and my group of friends, we never shouted or even held signs. We aren't dumb. We just watched, listened, took a few pictures, and left.

ShadowbaneX
07-06-2014, 12:19 AM
Thank you for your presumptions about me.

ShadowbaneX
07-06-2014, 12:20 AM
Because there are more people involved in this than just you & I...and man, I should stop posting late at night..that should be topic, not top.

GonzoTheGreat
07-06-2014, 03:57 AM
...and man, I should stop posting late at night..
To help you along with that resolution: it's always late at night somewhere.

ShadowbaneX
07-06-2014, 02:43 PM
To help you along with that resolution: it's always late at night somewhere.

So I should just stop posting all together? That might be an idea.

Nazbaque
07-06-2014, 04:11 PM
So I should just stop posting all together? That might be an idea.

What? Going cold turkey just like that? Well just don't try to replace it with food or smoking. And if you need help I can always troll you in the name of intervention.

ShadowbaneX
07-06-2014, 04:55 PM
Thanks for the offer, you're a true friend Naz. Gonzo might be a little saddened that he's got one less person to make horrible jokes to, but, then again, there's plenty of other people he can do that to.

Terez
07-06-2014, 05:38 PM
Thanks for the offer, you're a true friend Naz. Gonzo might be a little saddened that he's got one less person to make horrible jokes to, but, then again, there's plenty of other people he can do that to.
I will miss you if you go! :)

ShadowbaneX
07-06-2014, 05:53 PM
Heh, yeah, no. It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than these guys to get rid of me.