Congressman optimistic Obama will grant immigrants legal status

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

Cause this is the first time that amneyst has been giving right beezer?
Shouldn't you have had this attitude since the 80's when the first one was given?

When the first one was given by Ronald Reagan for 3 million, there was supposed to be a follow up by a promise by Congress to secure the border. They never implemented that little part.

You might find this information intriguing if you can get past the person that wrote it. She's not the most popular of women to say the least, but she's smart, even if she is blunt.

Amnesty begets amnesty

a reply to: Sremmos80

If you are okay with the government only following the law when it suits them, then don't be upset when the citizens do the same.

If we can't trust the government to uphold the rule of law, then there is no reason for people to obey the rules of law.

a reply to: queenofswords

And the other 6 times that is has happened?
www.numbersusa.com...
Reagans looking like the largest.
And just to be clear, are you blaming congress for not following through? Why didn't reagan do his job and force the action?
And ann coulter? Seriously, no I will not get past who she is and what she has said in the past.
She thinks the idea of soccer being popular is the decay of a country.
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: beezzer

So again beezer, this happened almost 30 years ago and 6 times since, why are you preaching this follow the law or I don't have to stance now?
By your logic you shouldn't have been following the law or trusting the gov since reagan.
And it hasn't even happened yet! The article in OP is nothing but one man being optimistic that it MIGHT happen.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

And the other 6 times that is has happened?
www.numbersusa.com...
Reagans looking like the largest.
And just to be clear, are you blaming congress for not following through? Why didn't reagan do his job and force the action?
And ann coulter? Seriously, no I will not get past who she is and what she has said in the past.
She thinks the idea of soccer being popular is the decay of a country.
www.youtube.com...

Wow. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Sometimes in my research I come across an article from a pundit or journalist that I abhor, but I read it and ponder the content in order to maintain integrity to my research. So be it. Suit yourself.

a reply to: queenofswords

So focus on that single part of the post and not the rest, right back at ya about the horse.

All she has to say in that article is amnesty is bad and that that central america has been a hell hole forever, whats new?
I am missing her point? So since it has been that way forever people don't need to get out of there?? Where is the logic in that? Seems like 'anti-logic'
Stole that one from the article

I drank the water, it was bad, something must have died in it upstream

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

So again beezer, this happened almost 30 years ago and 6 times since, why are you preaching this follow the law or I don't have to stance now?

Because I wasn't a member of ATS 30 years ago.

By your logic you shouldn't have been following the law or trusting the gov since reagan.

Obviously, we don't have to, since government doesn't follow the law.

And it hasn't even happened yet! The article in OP is nothing but one man being optimistic that it MIGHT happen.

So we should just shut up until the government ignores the rule of law?

a reply to: Sremmos80

That man is a congressman who publicly stated that law abiding citizens and their elected officials should be punished for disagreeing with him while practicing their constitutional rights and practicing the system of government in which laws are made..

And you don't find that disturbing?

a reply to: txinfidel

Who are your talking about? The post you responded too was about beezzers new found rebellion

a reply to: beezzer

No but your should already be not paying taxes and robbing banks cause that is what you said you will do of it does pass.
Cause it was already passed 30 years ago even tho your weren't a member of ats then

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well the Beez has a good point. If laws are passed by one man with the swipe of a pen then we effectively live under a dictatorship.

What point is their in obeying any laws if the POTUS decides which one will and will not be enforced?

There is affectively no law when we cross that bridge, thats anarchy.

a reply to: txinfidel

Again, laws have been passed with a swipe of pen looooong before barry, hasn't there only been like 1 pres that didn't pass a EO?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Do we live in a nation ruled by law, or do we live in a nation under the decree of a dictatorship?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Executive orders have always been used as directives for certain departments, not laws.

If thats so, why do we have a congress? Why do we have a senate?

a reply to: txinfidel

So your saying no other president has used a EO to create a law?

a reply to: Sremmos80

They are phone banks set up on they fly last minute, I doubt they implemented any sort of monitoring. I was asked to set one up for an obama campaign office.. it was a ghetto smash bang job to say the least.

I did that job before I started to become informed about politics. If some one asked me today to set up a phone bank for killary or obama for money id tell them where to go



But even if they are monitored, which I seriously doubt, I dont think they would do anything about illegal activity anyway. But of course my phone needs to be tapped, parsed and saved in a data farm.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Sremmos80

Do we live in a nation ruled by law, or do we live in a nation under the decree of a dictatorship?

I guess it has to be a nation ruled by law, except immigration apparently but that has been true since reagan.
By no means do we live under any sort of dictatorship

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Sremmos80

Do we live in a nation ruled by law, or do we live in a nation under the decree of a dictatorship?

I guess it has to be a nation ruled by law, except immigration apparently but that has been true since reagan.
By no means do we live under any sort of dictatorship

So we are a nation ruled by law, except when we aren't a nation ruled by law.

Okay.

a reply to: beezzer

So your problem is not with only this admin but almost every single one before it.
Deal

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

So your problem is not with only this admin but almost every single one before it.
Deal

And that is a shock? OMG! YES! I had issues with politicians before Obama.

Good Lord!