The Goat Pen

BigRedMan wrote:So wouldn't that be a dangerous precedent to start?

Illegal and dangerous, unpopular, precedent setting executive orders:

The Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln)
The Works Progress Administration "WPA" (FDR)
Desegregation of the Armed Forces (Truman)
Affirmative Action (JFK)
Equal Employment Opportunity (LBJ)

After much wailing, threats and cries against an "Imperial President," all of those were ultimately codified by law.

REMEMBER - if Congress wants to cancel the Executive Order, all they have to do is pass a law.

...and Hope-a-Dope had both houses of congress for two years.....

BigRedMan wrote:When Bush and Ronnie did it, they were following the laws that were in place and using statutes from it.

Obama is basically making his own law cause the house and senate won't play nice.

Am I off on this or no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigratio ... ct_of_1986

Passing an immigration bill requires governing, and the tea party wants no part of that tar baby (as Haley Barbour would say).

Instead rightwing Rs are lining up for Gubmint Shutdown Part Douche. Their reasoning is simple...

"We went down the government-shutdown route before, and the results didn't hurt the Republicans at all," says Rick Tyler, a onetime spokesman for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Republicans got reelected to the majority."

All agree the shutdown will have no real effect on oprama's action, but the hope of conservatives is it will serve as a reminder that unilateral WH measures will have dire consequences. Peachy.

Who is more detached from reality, the WH or tick?



...and the white knight is talkin' backwards.....

.....and the red Queen's off with her head.....

The WH leads by a nose....


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House says President Barack Obama's immigration executive actions would boost the economy by expanding the U.S. labor force and increasing worker productivity. It says average wages would rise over a 10 year period, a claim that Obama critics and even some labor allies dispute.

Passing an immigration bill requires governing,


Sooooo, what were they doing in '09 and '10?


...working on a narcissists' legacy perhaps?....

Professor Tiger wrote:I think the common liberal term of contempt is "flyover country."

The R's control both the House, the Senate, and most governorships and state houses. They're doing okay. Although I agree they have some significant demographic problems in the long run. They do tend to all look like Vern Lundquist.

And Hillary is no more guaranteed to win the presidency now than she was in 2008. Her resume is pathetic. But the R's never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I'm talking Presidential Elections. The GOP's control of the House from 2010 is largely a product of gerrymandering and the white. male hegemony that exists in the lightly populated states.

What continues to be ignored/glossed over is the number of people who voted Republican simply because BHO is black. We call it "The Bradley Syndrome" in Cali because Tom Bradley, the hugely successful, hugely popular Mayor of Los Angeles ran for Governor of California in 1982 and was polling 7-8 points ahead of his opponent the month before the election. His opponent's campaign manager said (in the NEWSPAPER!) that they expected a number of White voters wouldn't be able to carry through with voting for a Black governor and was fired, but that was the strategy. The Deukmejian campaign urged whites who "wanted to keep their privacy" to vote via absentee ballot and an unprecedented late surge of absentee ballots allowed Deukmejian to edge out Bradley.

The Moderate Voice http://themoderatevoice.com/131050/how- ... whole-lot/ cites studies that estimate that Obama lost up to 6% of the vote because of his race - that's potentially 8 million votes. Some studies estimate that just among die-hard Dems, his race cost him 4 million votes.

There are some who won't vote for Hilary because she's a woman, but that is assumed to be a much smaller number than the anti-race vote, so conservatively assume that Hilary recaptures 3 million of what Barry lost due to race.

The black vote was extremely loyal to Bill Clinton and will probably support Hilary in almost the same numbers that it supported BHO.
The hispanic voters who sat out the midterms now have motivation to come out in 2016 - you could see an unprecedented 80% Democratic vote from the fastest growing demo.
The Asian voter has a huge stake in the immigration debate (fastest growing group of immigrants) - and they were 75% Dem already.

The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... 012-a-lot/ calculated that Mitt Romney would've needed to take 67% of the White vote to have beaten Obama in 2012. The only time that's ever been done was by Reagan in 1984.

So with that, if Hilary picks up 3 million of the 8 million "race votes" that BHO lost, you're looking at a situation where the GOP will have to get on the order of 70% of the White vote . . . while pushing an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-minimum wage, anti-student loan, anti-affordable health care, anti-women agenda.

There are too many white people who are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-labor, pro-environment, etc., for the GOP to hit that number nationally.

"Clinton - held serve. +5 in the House and no change in the Senate (but the Senate was already 55-45 GOP)"

The Repubs popped Clinton pretty good in the midterm elections of his first term, though...

David Gergen in some ways reflects my feelings on the matter. I have been pro immigration; however, it must be done orderly and within the confides of the constitution. We also need to beef up the border. This move is unconstitutional, The President said as such 4 years ago. Just because congress doesn't act, doesn't make it any less unconstitutional today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/20/opinion/g ... index.html

I'm not going to sit here and let you bad-mouth the modern day equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation!

And get it past a veto.

sardis wrote:David Gergen in some ways reflects my feelings on the matter. I have been pro immigration; however, it must be done orderly and within the confides of the constitution. We also need to beef up the border.

That WAS Reagan's 1986 immigration act, pro-immigration and a promise that it was a "one time shot" that the Democrats would beef up the border. Of course, the Democrats lied (20,000,000 more Mexicans flowed across the unsecured border, unlawfully) and the current House Democrats are not the least bit concerned with border security. They don't think we should have immigration laws, so why should we enforce them? That is the President's position.

I remember 1986. So do all the current House GOP members. As The Who said, We wont be fooled again. These people need to be expelled from our country. They offer NO economic benefit to the United States. They do jobs US citizens will not do because they are doing jobs that should not even exist. There is not ONE JOB done by an illegal alien anywhere in our nation where that job is a net economic positive to our country, not one.

innocentbystander wrote:I remember 1986. So do all the current House GOP members. As The Who said, We wont be fooled again. These people need to be expelled from our country. They offer NO economic benefit to the United States. They do jobs US citizens will not do because they are doing jobs that should not even exist. There is not ONE JOB done by an illegal alien anywhere in our nation where that job is a net economic positive to our country, not one.

Dude, take the blinders off.

The Latino population in Idaho has quadrupled in the past 20 years, with most of them being immigrants/1st generation. Mexico doesn't share a border with Idaho, so how do fresh-off-the-boat immigrants get to Idaho?

Someone is bringing them there.

75% of the farm workers in Idaho are Mexican ancestry.

Someone is bringing them there.

Who would stand to benefit from a large influx of low wage workers in Idaho?

Someone is bringing them there.

Who would bring them there? It takes considerably more effort to get them to Idaho than to CA/AZ/TX/NM/UT/CO/KS/NE/OK/NV/WY or any of the states they'd have to pass through to get to Idaho.

Someone is bringing them there.

Winco, Albertson's, Con Agra, National Seed, Amalgamated Sugar, Swift Co., J.R. Simplot, Meadow Gold and other "big agriculture" companies have a huge need for low wage workers in Idaho.

Someone is bringing them there.

Field of dreams. If you bring them, they will come...

I agree with JD on this. The reason we have virtually open borders and millions of illegal aliens is both parties want it that way. When the Democrats see a Mexican running across the border, they smile and see a future Democrat voter, along with his wife and six children, assuring a one-party America in 20 years. When Establishment Republicans see a Mexican running across the border, they smile and see a hard worker they only have to pay $5.00/hour, no benefits, no unions, and greatly enhanced profits for some business somewhere. IB, they provide EXCELLENT economic benefits to to businesses in the United States.

Having millions of Illegal immigrants is about the only issue that has total bipartisan support.

Kudos to Crotch for this one, which he just posted in the Pen:

Professor Tiger wrote:I agree with JD on this. The reason we have virtually open borders and millions of illegal aliens is both parties want it that way. When the Democrats see a Mexican running across the border, they smile and see a future Democrat voter, along with his wife and six children, assuring a one-party America in 20 years. When Establishment Republicans see a Mexican running across the border, they smile and see a hard worker they only have to pay $5.00/hour, no benefits, no unions, and greatly enhanced profits for some business somewhere. IB, they provide EXCELLENT economic benefits to to businesses in the United States.

Having millions of Illegal immigrants is about the only issue that has total bipartisan support.

[Throws IB a bone]: Don't forget the live-in maid/nanny who works 96 hours/week for $200.00. If you take away the Blancas, Anas and Marisols from your spoiled, lazy wives, anarchy would ensue.

Putin seems to have an interview like this every few days or so. Always the same message: the sanctions aren't harming us in any way, so why don't you lift them?

http://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-russia ... 54058.html