Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[Ulysses G.]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

-snip-

You mention the "next president." I can assure you that you won't get any different on immigration from Mme President than you got from Barack Obama, G.W. Bush, and RR himself.

When EACH of those people was elected, the US didn't have as big of an illegal immigration problem, and more, it wasn't as widely realized how many of them were gangsters and making up a larger and larger percentage of the prison population.

20 years ago they came to the US looking for work and they did work and send money home.

Today they have learned how to game the system and Americans know that and are waking up.

Obama is busy assuring that no Democrat could possibly win the next presidential election.

Obama won both of his elections by just 51% of the vote. 49% didn't want him either time. Now he's one of the least popular presidents ever, and still digging a hole.

In the recent election the Democrat ass-kicking was so bad that only the blind could fail to see what's happening.

After the next presidential election the US will have a Republican Congress and a Republican President and the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

Neversure says "In the recent election the Democrat ass-kicking was so bad that only the blind could fail to see what's happening" I couldn't agree more, however there are some here that while not really blind they do have permanent blinders on, one seemingly incessant poster who resides in the far left wing nut fringe comes to mind What Harry Reid did in rigging the Obamacare vote so that it only required 51 votes instead of 60 votes, and what Obama just did with this unilateral illegal alien amnesty executive order, will come back to bite them in the as$ in spades in 2016 and well beyond The American people are fed up with all the lies from Reid ,Pelosi and Obama for the past 6 years and in 2016 their voices will be heard

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The Obama plan is another nail in the coffin of a 'unified' America.

White anger will boil over at some point.

Secession or outright civil war...or both.

Liberals and conservatives have been moving apart for several decades now.

The twain will never meet again this side of eternity.

Come to think of it, Obama and the liberals have offered the 'Right' an opportunity.

Hopefully it will galvanize even the most naïve whites that the America they knew is over or will be in the next few decades.

Buy guns and ammo.

Vinnie, The 2016 election will take care of things rather nicely I think, but long before that great day in November 2016 we will see obamacare destructed by the U.S. supreme court when they rule on the legality of the Obmacare subsidy (a case they agreed to take a couple weeks ago) Between individual funding bills defunding many parts of obamacare and many programs that the Dems live and die for, and the pandoras box of nuclear option that good ole hypocrite harry reid opened up with that obamacare vote, I think that calling obama a lame duck for the remainder of his term is actually an insult to lame ducks

[kingalfred]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

always rely on UG to find some link after a google, a "fox news contributor" no less, trying to support his fiction.

[Publicus]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

The link writes about amnesty which means the writer is out in right field and out very deeply in right field because the president's action has nothing whatsoever to do with amnesty. Do try to keep up, thx.

The post reads like a civics textbook which is good and it is also good Prez Obama comports to the qualities as presented and itemized. Prez Obama has indeed acted within the law, specifically, Title 8 United States Code of laws concerning Aliens & Nationality, and he has acted consistent to the constitution.

Opponents can continue to misrepresent the president's actions even to the point of trying to mangle them to suit their own purposes, but the fact remains the president as with past presidents has acted within the existing laws and consistent to the constitution while Congress itself has failed to act.

The Congress has the broader law making authority and the Congress -- the House specifically -- has failed us in this respect, so second best is the president's use of his limited but clear authority as chief of the executive branch..

While restrictionists love to attack any administrative action as the executive branch over-reaching, the more likely reason is that criticizing the President allows them to avoid criticizing DREAM Act students. It’s much easier to say that the President did it the wrong way than to actually engage in the reasons, such as stonewalling on the DREAM Act in Congress, that led him to his decision. In this case, critics want to get the facts wrong to avoid the policy debate..

See more at: http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/06/19/president-obama-issued-a-memo-not-an-executive-order/#sthash.DXVSLo7d.dpuf

Edited November 24, 2014 by Publicus

[F430murci]

This video is hilarious and right on point!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

[Ulysses G.]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

always rely on UG to find some link after a google, a "fox news contributor" no less, trying to support his fiction.

He is a JUDGE and has written numerous books about the law. I'm pretty sure that he knows a lot more about constitutional law than you do.

[thailiketoo]

Is it possible to stop calling each other derogatory names and mocking sources and instead focus on what was said by the poster or his source?

Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers. The channel, which finishes the year fourth among all cable networks, beat MSNBC and CNN combined in total viewers. But like its competition, Fox News saw an erosion of its audience, especially among the key A25-54 demographic, in 2013. In primetime, the network is posting its lowest total viewer delivery since 2007 and lowest demo delivery since 2001.

That's the facts. Nothing new. Just a thought that might make this thread readable for a change.

[kingalfred]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

always rely on UG to find some link after a google, a "fox news contributor" no less, trying to support his fiction.

He is a JUDGE and has written numerous books about the law. I'm pretty sure that he knows a lot more about constitutional law than you do.

nonsense! he makes a living spouting anti Obama rhetoric on the fake news channel,read his twitter feed.

[Chicog]

Is it possible to stop calling each other derogatory names and mocking sources and instead focus on what was said by the poster or his source?

Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers. The channel, which finishes the year fourth among all cable networks, beat MSNBC and CNN combined in total viewers. But like its competition, Fox News saw an erosion of its audience, especially among the key A25-54 demographic, in 2013. In primetime, the network is posting its lowest total viewer delivery since 2007 and lowest demo delivery since 2001.

That's the facts. Nothing new. Just a thought that might make this thread readable for a change.

Do they still tell porkies? There's no date on that report. From July this year (and I doubt it's changed since):

Fox News has won the battle for most-false cable network.

A new survey by the Tampa Bay Times’ PunditFact, looking at the veracity of cable networks, found that Fox News won (or lost) the first prize for having the most falsehoods studied.

According to PunditFact, Fox News’ on-air talent were mostly false, false, or “pants on fire” 60% of the time.

MSNBC ranked second in falsehoods, at 46% of the time.

And CNN ranked a lowly (or uply) 18% level of falsehoods – meaning, CNN did a pretty good job getting it right.

It might look better if you took the Benghazi bull out of it.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Chicog

[CMNightRider]

Is it possible to stop calling each other derogatory names and mocking sources and instead focus on what was said by the poster or his source?

Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers. The channel, which finishes the year fourth among all cable networks, beat MSNBC and CNN combined in total viewers. But like its competition, Fox News saw an erosion of its audience, especially among the key A25-54 demographic, in 2013. In primetime, the network is posting its lowest total viewer delivery since 2007 and lowest demo delivery since 2001.

That's the facts. Nothing new. Just a thought that might make this thread readable for a change.

Do they still tell porkies? There's no date on that report. From July this year (and I doubt it's changed since):

Fox News has won the battle for most-false cable network.

A new survey by the Tampa Bay Times’ PunditFact, looking at the veracity of cable networks, found that Fox News won (or lost) the first prize for having the most falsehoods studied.

According to PunditFact, Fox News’ on-air talent were mostly false, false, or “pants on fire” 60% of the time.

MSNBC ranked second in falsehoods, at 46% of the time.

And CNN ranked a lowly (or uply) 18% level of falsehoods – meaning, CNN did a pretty good job getting it right.

It might look better if you took the Benghazi bull out of it.

Talk about telling "porkies," Obama should receive some sort of recognition for all the porkies he has told. If it wasn't for porkies, Obama wouldn't have much to say at all. As far as "Fox News," these people continue to beat out CNN, and MSNBC, for being the most viewed cable news.

In addition, a recently-released study by the Pew Research Center found Fox News — mocked by critics as “Faux News” — actually spends far more time than its left-leaning rival MSNBC on factual reporting than commentary and opinion. Part of the annual “state of the news media” study, the report found that Fox News spends roughly 45 percent of its programming on factual reporting, and 55 percent on commentary and opinion. MSNBC, on the other hand, reportedly dedicates an average of 15 percent of its programming to factual reporting, the other 85 percent dominated by commentary and opinion.

[Jingthing]

Doesn't the tea bag set say Obama is a Muslim? So telling porkies. Really?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

Is it possible to stop calling each other derogatory names and mocking sources and instead focus on what was said by the poster or his source?

Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers. The channel, which finishes the year fourth among all cable networks, beat MSNBC and CNN combined in total viewers. But like its competition, Fox News saw an erosion of its audience, especially among the key A25-54 demographic, in 2013. In primetime, the network is posting its lowest total viewer delivery since 2007 and lowest demo delivery since 2001.

That's the facts. Nothing new. Just a thought that might make this thread readable for a change.

Do they still tell porkies? There's no date on that report. From July this year (and I doubt it's changed since):

Fox News has won the battle for most-false cable network.

A new survey by the Tampa Bay Times’ PunditFact, looking at the veracity of cable networks, found that Fox News won (or lost) the first prize for having the most falsehoods studied.

According to PunditFact, Fox News’ on-air talent were mostly false, false, or “pants on fire” 60% of the time.

MSNBC ranked second in falsehoods, at 46% of the time.

And CNN ranked a lowly (or uply) 18% level of falsehoods – meaning, CNN did a pretty good job getting it right.

It might look better if you took the Benghazi bull out of it.

Maybe you should read the actual article instead of silly, far-left blogs. That should read: Over Half of all Statements Made on Fox News THAT PUNDIFACT CHOSE TO EVALUATE are False. They clearly did not evaluate EVERY statement and they freely admit it. They are a very liberal organization, so it is no surprise they concentrate on discrediting conservative Fox News.

The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/jul/01/introducing-scorecards-tv-networks/

Edited November 24, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Oh please, I tend to scan all the news channels, and by a country mile Fox is the the one that spouts the most rubbish. It's a wild joke that they even mention the phrase "fair and balanced", they couldn't be more teabag if they changed their name to the PG Tips channel.

The only value in it is that tidy weather girl with the big bazookas.

[Ulysses G.]

Sounds like an unsubstantiated OPINION and from a very biased source.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Sounds like an unsubstantiated OPINION and from a very biased source.

But far more accurate than a third party opinion.

[Publicus]

Is it possible to stop calling each other derogatory names and mocking sources and instead focus on what was said by the poster or his source?

Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers. The channel, which finishes the year fourth among all cable networks, beat MSNBC and CNN combined in total viewers. But like its competition, Fox News saw an erosion of its audience, especially among the key A25-54 demographic, in 2013. In primetime, the network is posting its lowest total viewer delivery since 2007 and lowest demo delivery since 2001.

That's the facts. Nothing new. Just a thought that might make this thread readable for a change.

Do they still tell porkies? There's no date on that report. From July this year (and I doubt it's changed since):

Fox News has won the battle for most-false cable network.

A new survey by the Tampa Bay Times’ PunditFact, looking at the veracity of cable networks, found that Fox News won (or lost) the first prize for having the most falsehoods studied.

According to PunditFact, Fox News’ on-air talent were mostly false, false, or “pants on fire” 60% of the time.

MSNBC ranked second in falsehoods, at 46% of the time.

And CNN ranked a lowly (or uply) 18% level of falsehoods – meaning, CNN did a pretty good job getting it right.

It might look better if you took the Benghazi bull out of it.

Talk about telling "porkies," Obama should receive some sort of recognition for all the porkies he has told. If it wasn't for porkies, Obama wouldn't have much to say at all. As far as "Fox News," these people continue to beat out CNN, and MSNBC, for being the most viewed cable news.

In addition, a recently-released study by the Pew Research Center found Fox News — mocked by critics as “Faux News” — actually spends far more time than its left-leaning rival MSNBC on factual reporting than commentary and opinion. Part of the annual “state of the news media” study, the report found that Fox News spends roughly 45 percent of its programming on factual reporting, and 55 percent on commentary and opinion. MSNBC, on the other hand, reportedly dedicates an average of 15 percent of its programming to factual reporting, the other 85 percent dominated by commentary and opinion.

Almost every one of you guys is almost always well and readily researched at almost any given thread.

I am of course commending you.

The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle. The great number of loyalists who watch Faux keep it on throughout the day, which jiggers and skews the ratings.

CNN viewers for instance check in an out during a given day based on the viewer's schedule and the value to each viewer of the news of the day. Breaking news gets some continuous viewership, but most viewers check in at times convenient to them then channel surf, network surf.

Faux viewers are however junkies who eat, breathe, sit through Faux continuously and endlessly. It thus seems Faux has this massive number of viewers when it is in fact the same old unemployed and on welfare Buster and Billie Six Pack sitting there.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Publicus

[chuckd]

Oh please, I tend to scan all the news channels, and by a country mile Fox is the the one that spouts the most rubbish. It's a wild joke that they even mention the phrase "fair and balanced", they couldn't be more teabag if they changed their name to the PG Tips channel.

The only value in it is that tidy weather girl with the big bazookas.

Which other networks are keeping you misinformed?

[thailiketoo]

Almost every one of you guys is almost always well and readily researched at almost any given thread.

I am of course commending you.

The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle. The great number of loyalists who watch Faux keep it on throughout the day, which jiggers and skews the ratings.

CNN viewers for instance check in an out during a given day based on the viewer's schedule and the value to each viewer of the news of the day. Breaking news gets some continuous viewership, but most viewers check in at times convenient to them then channel surf, network surf.

Faux viewers are however junkies who eat, breathe, sit through Faux continuously and endlessly. It thus seems Faux has this massive number of viewers when it is in fact the same old unemployed and on welfare Buster and Billie Six Pack sitting there.

You wrote, "The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle." False.

The truth: Prime time TV represents the time periods when the most people are watching television. It's considered to run from 8pm-11pm ET (7pm-10pm CT) Mondays through Saturdays and 7pm-11pm ET (6pm-10pm CT) on Sundays.

Prime time is when networks will air their most popular programming -- comedies, dramas, newsmagazines and high-profile sports events. Networks wage fierce battles to be number one in the Nielsen ratings during prime time.

The truth: According to Nielsen data through Dec. 8, Fox News Channel averaged 1.774 million viewers in primetime, It was followed by MSNBC with 645,000 viewers. CNN with 578,000

Fox News Remains Ratings Champ As 2013 Comes to Close

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/fox-news-remains-ratings-dynamo-as-2013-comes-to-close-1200964903/

Where did you get your misinformation from? Or did you just make it up?

Edited November 24, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Chicog]

Oh please, I tend to scan all the news channels, and by a country mile Fox is the the one that spouts the most rubbish. It's a wild joke that they even mention the phrase "fair and balanced", they couldn't be more teabag if they changed their name to the PG Tips channel.

The only value in it is that tidy weather girl with the big bazookas.

Which other networks are keeping you misinformed?

Sky, BBC, Al Jazeera English, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and occasionally an Asian news channel if I'm visiting.

But none of them have the sheer, guaranteed entertainment value of Fox's attempt at "News".

[chuckd]

<snip>

President Obama Issued a Directive, Not an “Executive Order” or “New Law”

While folks are free to criticize the President, they should at least strive for accuracy. The President did not create a new law, sign an executive order or grant anyone citizenship or amnesty, he merely directed DHS to exercise discretion to grant deferred action to qualified immigrant youth—an action that is well within his power as President..

http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/06/19/president-obama-issued-a-memo-not-an-executive-order/

While I am certain you will disagree, don't you think posting this link was a little disingenuous?

Here we are all geared up to discuss Obama's latest folly of issuing an Executive Order and you spring this link on us that tells us he really didn't sign an Executive Order but, instead, merely issued a directive to Homeland Security for them to exercise prosecutorial discretion.

What I am wondering is, how many people actually clicked on the link to find out it was from action he took in June 2012, over two years ago. How many didn't bother and now don't really know what he did.

Nice try.

[chuckd]

Oh please, I tend to scan all the news channels, and by a country mile Fox is the the one that spouts the most rubbish. It's a wild joke that they even mention the phrase "fair and balanced", they couldn't be more teabag if they changed their name to the PG Tips channel.

The only value in it is that tidy weather girl with the big bazookas.

Which other networks are keeping you misinformed?

Sky, BBC, Al Jazeera English, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and occasionally an Asian news channel if I'm visiting.

But none of them have the sheer, guaranteed entertainment value of Fox's attempt at "News".

That certainly helps explain many of your posts.

[Chicog]

Oh please, I tend to scan all the news channels, and by a country mile Fox is the the one that spouts the most rubbish. It's a wild joke that they even mention the phrase "fair and balanced", they couldn't be more teabag if they changed their name to the PG Tips channel.

The only value in it is that tidy weather girl with the big bazookas.

Which other networks are keeping you misinformed?

Sky, BBC, Al Jazeera English, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and occasionally an Asian news channel if I'm visiting.

But none of them have the sheer, guaranteed entertainment value of Fox's attempt at "News".

That certainly helps explain many of your posts.

You didn't really expect me to toe the FoxBag Party line did you?!

Added; Just flipped it on.

Currently some blonde bit of eye candy (the one that tries to dumb down for the viewers) discussing how not only are Obama's numbers going to hinder Hillary's run for President, but so is the Bill Cosby rape story.

Yep, you can't make that up. But they can.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Chicog

[CMNightRider]

Almost every one of you guys is almost always well and readily researched at almost any given thread.

I am of course commending you.

The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle. The great number of loyalists who watch Faux keep it on throughout the day, which jiggers and skews the ratings.

CNN viewers for instance check in an out during a given day based on the viewer's schedule and the value to each viewer of the news of the day. Breaking news gets some continuous viewership, but most viewers check in at times convenient to them then channel surf, network surf.

Faux viewers are however junkies who eat, breathe, sit through Faux continuously and endlessly. It thus seems Faux has this massive number of viewers when it is in fact the same old unemployed and on welfare Buster and Billie Six Pack sitting there.

"Old unemployed and on welfare?" I sure hope the people who are in charge of this forum are keeping track and present you with some sort of an award for the most immature, nonsensical, and idiotic posts.

God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information regarding Obama's lunacy from granting amnesty to several million illegals, to his lies and deception about ObamCare.

[zydeco]

Almost every one of you guys is almost always well and readily researched at almost any given thread.

I am of course commending you.

The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle. The great number of loyalists who watch Faux keep it on throughout the day, which jiggers and skews the ratings.

CNN viewers for instance check in an out during a given day based on the viewer's schedule and the value to each viewer of the news of the day. Breaking news gets some continuous viewership, but most viewers check in at times convenient to them then channel surf, network surf.

Faux viewers are however junkies who eat, breathe, sit through Faux continuously and endlessly. It thus seems Faux has this massive number of viewers when it is in fact the same old unemployed and on welfare Buster and Billie Six Pack sitting there.

"Old unemployed and on welfare?" I sure hope the people who are in charge of this forum are keeping track and present you with some sort of an award for the most immature, nonsensical, and idiotic posts.

God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information regarding Obama's lunacy from granting amnesty to several million illegals, to his lies and deception about ObamCare.

He's a hipster. Probably watches soccer and drinks craft beer.

[Chicog]

God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information regarding Obama's lunacy from granting amnesty to several million illegals, to his lies and deception about ObamCare.

It's an amnesty again!

[CMNightRider]

What do you call it?

[Chicog]

What do you call it?

Temporary relief.

Can be reversed at the stroke of the next presidential pen, or by Congress actually passing an immigration bill.

Essentially they're being given work permits.

Why would you call that an "amnesty"?

Oh, I forgot.

Fox told you to.

[boomerangutang]

Now that Republicans have a majority, does that mean they will continue to obstruct, complain and drag their feet non-stop?

[CMNightRider]

What do you call it?

Temporary relief.

Can be reversed at the stroke of the next presidential pen, or by Congress actually passing an immigration bill.

Essentially they're being given work permits.

Why would you call that an "amnesty"?

Oh, I forgot.

Fox told you to.

Temporary relief from what? Loosen those curlers and think. I don't even get Fox News.