Is Obama a President or King?

[Heywood]

Suppose Bush undertook a years-long war that killed thousands of Americans without a declaration of war being sought?

Oh, wait.

Bush got authorization from Congress before he began his campaign in Iraq. Obama never got such authorization for his actions in Iraq or Libya. These are verifiable facts of history and they are not in dispute(except perhaps by idiots).

Anyways....I predict tonight that Obama will say that he is "not a king"....and then he will proceed to explain how his disillusionment with congress justifies him effectively re-writing immigration statutes.

He will use his bully pulpit to try to get you to hate the republicans. When you see him try to sell hate....see him for what he is....a hate peddler and a small dysfunctional man.

[DeistPaladin]

Obama has done fewer executive orders than any other president in history.

Not even close to being true.

Source.

OK, any other president in recent history, including St. Reagan.

---

It doesn't matter how many executive orders any president issues. What matter is the nature of those executive orders.

You mean like giving amnesty to illegal aliens?

Like St. Reagan did?

[Mister Agenda]

Tonight Obama, presumably, will side step congress and enact his own immigration reform. Does this make him a president or a king?

Being elected president makes him president. America doesn't have a king. He isn't doing anything that can't be overridden by congress or the next president.

Now I don't normally like to use material from Fox News because many of you are simply unwilling to hear an opposing view point when it comes from Fox News(which is silly) but I think Napolintano does a good job of framing what we should be looking when Obama presents his solution to the immigration problem.

I used to watch FOX News because I hoped it would balance the liberal bias of the other networks and give me a more complete picture of the news. However, their partisanship crosses the border of ridiculousness. That said, I regard Napolitano as interesting enough not to go out of my way to avoid watching him.

If anyone wants to post opposing views of what we should be looking for....please do it now before Obama makes his play.

I think we should open our borders except for reasonable security precautions (get their picture, fingerprint, and DNA; put them in a database if they aren't already there, and give them a visa). My only misgiving about Obama's actions is that it may lead to a congressional backlash that winds up making immigration even more broken than it already is, but I have that concern primarily because so many of our elected congress critters are overgrown children.

How do you feel about a party that blocks legislation 57% of Americans want to see passed?

---

Yeah, that looks more like it. I just can't remember which video Kyle puts it up on.

Ah, I can see where that chart would be misleading. It's not chronologically ordered, but ordered from most executive orders to fewest; and it's average executive orders per day in office, so two-term presidents could issue more orders than single-term presidents and still have a shorter bar on that scale. If you didn't have the opportunity to look at it closely, your impression is quite understandable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do "they" have your DNA MA? How about your prints?

[Mister Agenda]

Do "they" have your DNA MA? How about your prints?

'They' have my prints, from my military service. If they were taking DNA back then, I'm sure they'd have that, too. I don't think it's unreasonable to have as much biometric information on otherwise undocumented people who are coming into our country as we have on our own servicemembers.

Edit: Though I admit my primary interest in those requirements is allaying the fears of people who have issues with immigration. It's possible to have a better record of who is in our country by letting them in more freely than we can have now, but personally, I ain't a'scared of brown people crossing our border. I'd advocate a completely open border if I thought people would stand for it, this is my compromise.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are immigrants applying for military service? I was unaware that this was so. I think printing a kid is probably a good idea if you plan on handing him an AT4. Printing a kid because he;d rather live here than whatever hellhole he came from...meh, not my cup of tea - and if we're just doing it so that douchebags won't feel too uncomfortable, we're going to fail horribly on that count. It aint the fact that we don't have their prints and DNA that makes them uncomfortable..lol.

Why hold immigrants to a higher standard than citizens..a military standard? Hooah? LOL, I get your pragmatism, but I think it gives up far too much. When a compromise forces you to give up your core, it ceases to be compromise...and becomes capitulation, imo. So we'd stop prosecuting illegals as criminals in favor of simply treating them like criminals (or soldiers, amiright...lulz)? No change. No deal.

[Mister Agenda]

Are immigrants applying for military service? I was unaware that this was so. I think printing a kid is probably a good idea if you plan on handing him an AT4. Printing a kid because he;d rather live here than whatever hellhole he came from...meh, not my cup of tea - and if we're just doing it so that douchebags won't feel too uncomfortable, we're going to fail horribly on that count. It aint the fact that we don't have their prints and DNA that makes them uncomfortable..lol.

Why hold immigrants to a higher standard than citizens..a military standard? Hooah? LOL, I get your pragmatism, but I think it gives up far too much.

Asking for biometric information on undocumented immigrants is not even close to what we expect from people who join the military service. We already fingerprint and photo ID immigrants. They've got Homeland Security so far up their ass I'm surprised DNA sampling isn't already done.

But I'm not talking about immigration, I'm talking about them coming into the country and staying as a guest when they don't have an ID or a passport and come from a country where it's easy to be involved in violent criminal activity without there being a record of it in any criminal database. For some of them, crossing the border will grant them the first validated ID they will ever have had. I understand why people are worried about some of them committing serious crimes when they get here. DNA samples mean if they misbehave, we'll have a better chance of catching the perpetrator. I hate the precautionary measure, and would be alarmed if it was forced on American citizens who are civilians...but the people who this applies to won't be citizens, and they aren't being forced: if they're not willing to give up a DNA swab, they can elect not to cross the border, or cross it illegally.

Though if the Republicans would let it fly without the swab, it's fine with me. I strongly doubt they'd buy my plan WITH the swab in the next ten years. I'm somewhat hopeful for the ten years after that, when we'll be under enormous pressure to replenish our shrinking workforce and tax base. We'll be a lot better off if we do it sooner than later, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's easy to be involved in violent and criminal activity in the states without there being a record of it- and yet...we don't require that of our citizens. DNA sampling means we'd be able to catch our own domestics better as well. Any argument you make for it that you don't immediately extend to our own citizens is just going to get both barrels from me. If it would alarm you that our government was doing something to americans, it ought to alarm you when they do it to others (after all, you and I know they're just practicing for when they -do- get to do it to americans).

It's just not a difficult ideal to live up to at all, I see no value in compromise on this point. I understand that it's just compromise for you, I'm just cautioning against even -considering- such a "compromise".

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me put this another way, soberly consider what we're discussing as "just a compromise" - why should we ever find ourselves in a position to be so casual about such a thing, as to dangle it in front of bigots to -appease them-? What would that say about -us-?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Bush got authorization from Congress before he began his campaign in Iraq. Obama never got such authorization for his actions in Iraq or Libya. These are verifiable facts of history and they are not in dispute(except perhaps by idiots).

Firstly, Bush gained the approval of Congress based on information known to be false before it was fed to Congress.

Secondly, I was opposed to American action in Libya and am still opposed to bombing in Iraq. I can't think of one square meter of that region worth one pint of American blood. And even having said that, those campaigns haven't been "wars" of the same gravity, now have they?

Finally, my point was to underscore your obvious bias despite being a self-proclaimed independent.

Bias is natural, we all have it; just useful to point it out.