Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Later was a typo intended to be "alter". Obama used EO several times to alter the ACA. Look it up. Making any change to a law is over riding the original content. This is one of the charges he will be facing.

PeterS

How funny, you're the one who can't prove what you say and you are calling someone else the buffoon. A clearer case of projection there couldn't be....

PeterS

So you are going to charge him with overriding a law that you hate? Why, would you have hated it less if he had left in such things a the Mandate on Small Businesses and hadn't eased it on large one? That was one of the things you hated about the ACA. You guys claimed it killed the economy remember? Of course not, all you remember is your hatred for Obama and nothing more and that's the only real "charge" he is facing...

Loki Loc: Georgia

You said
"such as?"

Find it yourself. After all, you're an aerospace engineer.
******
You opined...
"Well, it's faster than typing out all the colors... black, brown, yellow, red... so yeah.. "non-whites". And, I tell ya what... Show me one example of a violent crime committed by non-whites that are state-sponsored or legally excused and ask me what I think."
Why should I? You have not shown me any examples of government sponsored violence against non-whites, only your dumbass opinion that enforcing immigration laws are "government sponsored violence." According to you, protecting our border is an act of violence. Using that logic, everytime you lock your door to keep out a thief, you commit violence against them. (Unless, of course, the thieves are white, in which case it's perfectly justified.)
********
StraightUp typed....
"First of all, I said "banning Muslims"... I did NOT say "banning ALL Muslims". Secondly, it doesn't matter to filth like Trump if some other non-Muslims get caught in the ban because they happen to come from the same country. Have you never heard of collateral damage? The point (and I've said this before) is symbolic. There is no functional advantage to this travel ban, the advantage is symbolic. It's a move designed to win the black hearts of his putrid base and I'm going to say it worked."
I don't know how to penetrate the concrete wall around your brain. It is NOT a "Muslim ban." It is a temporary ban on all people from certain countries where we do not have proper vetting procedures in place, the truth of which was testified to in front of Congress by Jeh Johnson; OBAMA'S head of Homeland Security.
It is a move not to win hearts, but to enrage dolts who think that we are the only country in the world who has no right to control who passes our borders.
There is a very functional advantage to this ban which even someone like you should be able to see; you turn off the water to fix the leak.
*******
You....
"I said... "But you don't really know that. You're just speculating just like with your feeble attempt to make a right-wing terrorist a victim." Is that any clearer?"
It wasn't worth a reply the first time, either.
******
StraightUp
".I can tell the difference between rushed grammar, which should be expected to some degree on a site like this and a near-complete lack of grammatical capacity, like some others here."
If you could do this, you would not make the same errors over and over again. Anyway, you began the Grammar Nazi routine with your reference to "ending a sentence with a preposition." Not recommended, but allowed in informal writing.
******
I love this one.

Loki wrote:

******
"And I know the difference, slick. I remember explaining the difference between pre-1965 and post-1965 immigration laws on this site a few months back. I've touched on the legal aspects of immigration a LOT. Do you not remember the analogy I made to the Nazi laws that prohibited any aid to Jews? Remember me telling you that as an American I feel a duty to challenge the laws that I feel are unjust? Do you not understand that our Constitution gives me and any other citizen the right to challenge these laws through free speech and democratic process? Or are you so set in right-wing conservatism that you feel obliged to accept any and all laws as being final and non-negotiable, like a good little sheep?"
You explained your ignorance of immigration law.

As a matter of fact, YOU wrote that. I wrote the very last sentence. The rest is a product of your own twisted reasoning.
You were saying that "YOU schooled ME?"
*******
You blathered.....
"Not when it comes to life and death. You make this much more complicated than it really is. I know you do this to obscure your own bigotry but when people are facing horrific conditions, you either help them or you don't. It's that simple. Fuck your idiot nationalism bullshit."
Life and death? Who the fuck are you trying to kid? You are the one making it more complicated than it is. I know you do this to justify your own surrealistic view of the world, but WHAT horrific conditions? I see US citizens every day in straits far more dire than I have ever seen any fucking wetback in this country face. If conditions are so bad in their country, why do they expect us to change our country into their country for their convenience?
Fuck your moronic liberal "help the world with someone else's money" bullshit.
******
You said (in reference to challenging laws)

"How do you know?
You don't.
So, why even say stupid things like that?"
This is not stupid; but observed phenomenon. You "challenge laws" with bullshit opinions. You offer no legal recourse, just a shrill, obnoxious voice in the wilderness yelling for change and completely clueless as to how that change must occur.
*******
This is a good one

"Is that a run-on sentence? I'm only saying because it's hard to know what you're actually saying or asking here. Maybe I can break it down...
Am I so set in left-wing situational ethics that I cannot accept that laws can be challenged? No. Did you not understand where I said "as an American I feel a duty to challenge the laws that I feel are unjust?" Was that just too hard for you to comprehend?
You also said (in the same sentence) But until they are challenged successfully, they are still the laws. Well, no fucking shit Mr. Genius. I said challenge the law, not break the law.
So, let me ask you something... are you practicing the art of intentional misunderstanding? I can't actually tell if you're being divisive or if you really do have a reading comprehension problem, but I know it's either one or the other."

First question; yes, that was a run on sentence; I should have placed a semi-colon rather than a comma after challenged. You mentioned the difference between a typo and a lack of grammatical knowledge. This is an actual typo, not to be confused with the same mistake over and over again.
Good catch anyway.
"As an American you feel an obligation to challenge laws you feel are unjust?" You feel an obligation to ignore them whenever possible; and your "challenges" are nothing more than an "I'm just pissing up a rope because I have no answers" complaint.
Intentional misunderstanding in your case is not an art form. It is more of a way of life. You don't appear to have a reading comprehension problem; just a problem in realizing that you are wrong more often than you are right.
Therein lies the difference between us.
*******
You said
"LOL... you TOTALLY are... It's not just you... Being submissive is a huge part of conservative culture. Next to the North Koreans, I would say American Conservatives are the most submissive sheep in the world and it's funny as hell because it's the last thing they want to hear."
You have exceeded my expectations in gratuitous hypocrisy. Everything you say is straight out of an internationalist primer. You wouldn't dream of speaking out against anything left-wing. It might damage your own self view. Your posts are practically a parroting of every open border/screw sovereignty left wing dreck article that was ever published in Mother Jones. You are so busy pointing out the flaws in Conservatives that you cannot see the far larger ones in your own thinking.
Let me ask you something. In your dream of making the US a country without borders, did it ever occur to you that people want to come here because we are not like the rest of the world?
We will be if you have your way.
******
While we are on the subject of illegals.....
"Here's what you said... "OBAMA said his amnesty was illegal, more than 20 times in public. Right up until the time he declared it." And now you're saying that he didn't actually say it was illegal but there isn't much doubt that's what he meant. Uh-huh. Well, actually it's pretty clear what he is saying... the same thing I already told you, that Obama was trying to explain that laws come from Congress, not executive orders. He was also explaining that he can't use executive orders to override the law. That's basically all he said within the confines of passage you decided to quote. He was explaining the rules, he didn't say anything about his policy on amnesty. As it turns out, the way DACA was written, it is NOT in violation of ANY laws passed by Congress."
It isn't?
8 US Code, sections 1182, 1324, 1325. THESE are real live laws passed by a real live Congress and signed by a real live president. DACA flies in the face of these laws.
See what I mean?
Me= legal fact
You= half-assed opinion.
*****
You blathered (once more)...
"That's you're response? LOL According to my logic, Trump succeeded; according to yours, he failed. The only reason why you don't like my logic is because it shows us how absurd your political positions are."
I don't dislike your logic. I dislike your claim to possessing that commodity. Newsflash: You don't.
I suppose my political positions are absurd, since that is your definition of anything with which you disagree.
******
This is one of your more ridiculous statements.....

"You're an idiot. How old were you when you realized Santa Clause isn't real? 23?
LOL
So, SHOW me where it says citizens have a right to live here that permanent resident aliens don't have."
Be very careful whom you call an idiot, you supercilious prick.
A permanent legal resident can have his status revoked.
8 USC Sections 1186, 1227, 1451.
Once more;
Me=legal fact
You= half-assed opinion.

What was that comment about Santa Claus, pendejo?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

That reminds me.I forgot to get the recipe for that avocado dip.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

This jerk has a mighty lofty opinion of himself .

Loki Loc: Georgia

Tough job, but someone has to do it.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

Yes indeed .

I can see it now . Little baby boy straightup perched on his daddies knees
being smugly told of his British Heritage from about age 1 on . Over
and over thru to maturity . Wanna bet he wears Union-Jack jemmies .

Pip pip what what . Oh that's right . No body says that in the U.K. anymore .
No shit straightup . Really . What a pompous ass .

I wonder if he corrects others speech when not proper . Most likely
since he appears stuck in his microcosm of So. Cal . ( oh crap ) I mean
North West L.A. with all that British blood running in his veins .
Pip pip .What what .

An impressive person if he does say so himself .

straightUp Loc: California

It only seems that way because I'm talking to people like you. It's hard not to feel superior when the people you talk to are such idiots.


That's a technicality. Your high horse is that you don't use certain words. You CALL it swearing, but what you don't understand is that words by themselves are meaningless, they only take on meaning in the context of an expression. That's where the swearing is. You're probably already lost, but I'm just going to explain anyway. Swearing is an attitude... that's why there are several words included in what people like you call swearing, because words get added. In England a fag is a cigarette, but here is carries a derogatory meaning. I'm saying that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You DO swear... I've seen you swear. I've seen you fling plenty of poo and you're the monkey that thinks his shit don't stink 'cause there's no "prohibited words" in it.

...'don't matter.

When you say things that are obviously racist or hurtful to others as you I've seen you do, it doesn't matter what words you choose... clean words don't make it any less offensive.

On the other hand, I use these words to emphasis ideas and I rarely use them in the context of a direct attack. You might not know the difference, but saying "you're a fucking piece of shit" isn't the same thing as saying "that's fucking funny".

You need to grow up.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I just like to know what perspective posters are coming from. Can be revealing.
I was lucky enough to be born here.
I have studied to realize how lucky I am.
IMO; you are lucky your dad moved here from England, and it appears you wish to stay.
It is apparent that you did get a good liberal education while growing up.

Thanks for your honesty,sUp.
Now we can better appreciate how you ended up this way.
At least for your sake, you know enough not to move back to England.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

eagleye13 wrote:
I have a couple questions for you, sUp;
Do you still hold allegiance to the queen?

Still? Did you not get the part where I said I was 2 years old when I got here? 'You really think 2 year old babies hold allegiances to monarchs? - sUp

That was an attempt at humor.
I thought it was kind of funny.
I guess you didn't get it.
We do have a bit of fun around here

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

You spend a lot of time 'splainin' for someone that feels superior.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

You little people will never get it . Will you ?
Baiting our intellectual superior's pays little dividends .
Don't cha know ! Stand by for your upcoming dressing
down from our newest grammar/spelling Nazi .
I can hear his inner gears grinding now . Going
over and over his go to thoughts . One in particular
that only a true Brit has when all efforts fail . That being ,
" But But but , I am British "

straightUp Loc: California

1. I never said I was an aerospace engineer... You've just proved your inadequacy in reading comprehension.
2. find it yourself? YOU were the one making the false claim you moron, so the burden of proof is on YOU not me.

I'm not going to waste any more time on your retarded antics. If you have something substantial to say about the topic or about my argument, then be my guest, but if you're just going to fill up pages with cheap shots and childish tit-tats then I'm not interested.

That goes for the rest of the losers barking at my feet.

I knew this topic was going to piss off the bigots on this site, so I wasn't expecting anything different and it was fun to see you bigots tripping over yourselves to insult me, while completely failing to present a counter argument of ANY kind. But you know... it gets boring pretty fast, when that's all there is.

So again, if you have a counter-argument, present it. Otherwise, I'll be wrapping this up as yet another exposure of incompetence, ignorance and emotional turmoil in the Trump base.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

2 wrongs do not make a right. If it is illegal to over ride law through EO, Obama is guilty. His problem not mine, and you are quite incorrect with regards to potential charges he will be facing. There are several individuals and organizations building the cases as we speak and as he loses his left over government plants, the day of the filings draws nearer.

Have you bothered to look into the changes to the ACA brought by Obama's EOs? If you do you may find those changes were attempts to fix the poorly written law and in many instances compromised it further making it more and more unacceptable.