You haven't seen the worst of the RETARD, wait until he calls and rants and raves and then quickly hangs up so he won't get his stupid left-wing propaganda shoved up his ass!

"totus" is QUEER, he earned his drug buying cash giving "lewinskys" to rich white guys on the beach in Hawaii while in school!
Numerous people have come forward of late. including his aunt, and stated he was BORN IN KENYA , he has never become a naturalized citizen so he is AN ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These RETARDED "totus" testicle swingers are so enamored and in love with "totus" that they will make lame excuses for anything "totus"does!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
The last three Republican Presidents agree with and had further reaching laws on immigration than Obama announced last night.

Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama

Not only were past executive actions smaller, they didn't work.

“What about Reagan in 1987? And George H.W. Bush in 1990?”



This has become a favorite Democratic and center-left rebuttal to
Republicans angry at reports that President Obama may soon grant
residency and working papers to as many as 5 million illegal aliens. If
Obama acts, he’d rely on precedents set by Republican predecessors.
Surely that should disbar today’s Republicans from complaining?



Surely not, and for four reasons.



1) Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in
furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a
full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights
on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for
all” solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be
followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their
ambition, the statute’s authors were confounded when their broad law
generated some unanticipated hard cases. The hardest were those in which
some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did
not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly
legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger)
executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli
itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was.

Executive action by President Obama, however, would follow
not an act of Congress but a prior executive action of his own: his
suspension of enforcement against so-called Dreamers in June 2012.
A new order would not further a congressional purpose. It is intended
to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress. Two presidents of
two different parties have repeatedly called upon Congress to pass a
second large amnesty. Congress has repeatedly declined. Each Congress
elected since 2006 has been less favorable to amnesty than the previous
one, and the Congress elected this month is the least favorable of all.
Obama talks as if Congress’s refusal to fall in with his wishes somehow
justifies him in acting alone. He may well have the legal power to do
so. But it hardly enhances the legitimacy of his action. Certainly he is
not entitled to cite as precedent the examples of presidents who did act together with Congress.

2) Reagan and Bush legalized much smaller numbers of people than
Obama is said to have in mind. While today's advocates cite a figure of
1.5 million people among those potentially affected by Bush's order, only about 140,000 people ultimately gained legal status this way,
according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data as reviewed
by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. (Updated: Krikorian reconsidered the numbers and now concludes the true figure is even lower—less than 50,000.)
Obama’s June 2012 grant of residency to the so-called “Dreamers”,
people who were brought to the United States illegally as children,
could potentially reach 1.4 million people. His next round of
amnesty (This was written November 18, two days before Obama's day of infamy) , which is advertised as benefiting the parents of the Dreamers
and other illegal-alien parents of U.S. resident children, could reach
as many as 5 million people.

Put it another way: If all the potential of Obama’s past and next
action is realized, he would—acting on his own authority and in direct
contravention of the wishes of Congress—have granted residency and work
rights to more than double the number of people amnestied by Simpson-Mazzoli, until now the most far-reaching immigration amnesty in U.S. history.

As the philosopher liked to point out, at a certain point, a difference in quantity becomes a difference in quality.


3) The Reagan-Bush examples are not positive ones. The 1986 amnesty did not work as promised. It was riddled with fraud. The enforcement provisions were ignored or circumvented. Illegal immigration actually increased in the years after the amnesty. The supposed "once and for all” solution almost immediately gave rise to an even larger version of the original problem.



The argument that “Reagan and Bush did it,” is essentially an
argument that future generations should not learn from the errors of
previous generations. With the advantage of experience, it is clear that
their decisions did not produce the desired result, and actually
greatly worsened the problem they sought to solve. Let’s not repeat
their mistake.

4) The invocation of the Reagan and Bush cases exemplifies the bad
tendency of political discussion to degenerate into an exchange of
scripted talking points. “Oh yeah? Well, this guy you liked also did
this thing you don’t like!” Is that really supposed to convince anybody?
What we have here is not a validation of the correctness of President
Obama’s action. It’s the shaking of a fetish, an effort to curtail
argument rather than enlighten it.



It’s a style of argument borrowed from the late-night cable-comedy
shows, in which a clip of somebody saying something at some point in the
past is supposed to estop that person—or anybody in any way connected
to him, or supportive of him, or even mostly but not entirely admiring
of him—from ever saying anything different in the future. But a zinger
is not a rebuttal. In this case, with all the huge differences between
Obama’s situation and those of his predecessors, it does not even zing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...tive-amnesty/382906/

L you're wasting key strokes!!!!!
The RETARDS are blind to TRUTH and FACTS, if a FLEEBAGGER or the left-wing lame stream moron media spouts something it is GOSPEL to the RETARDS!!!!!

Contact: Bob Henning for your
Bumper Sticker Removal Kit


Augusta Warrior Project
Gpa

Originally posted by Mike English:
Gma/Bob/ZERO/Barney Fife/Daytona Big Wheels
L8R, Mike

Mornin marie!

I see i ripped off a scab on the ol Ronnie Conservative armor.

Glad i hit a nerve with my right leaning friends!

Its just killing you guys that the last three Republican Presidents all ran for office supporting Amnesty for Illegals.

And yet Obama has deported more Illegals than any of the three?
And he hasnt given any illegals amnesty like all 3 did?

So your for deporting more Illegals right?
And you dont want any getting amnesty right?

WELCOME to Obamaville! you guys didnt know you were on the same side as Obama did you?

How does it feel? ahh im all warm a and fuzzy just thinking how much you all have in common with Obama

Its so funny...

All you immigrant haters might take a step back and think about your position on this issue.

Are you Native American?
Are you Mexican?

Guess what my immigrant hating friends at some point YOUR family member who was an immigrant on these shores was just as hated!

Now here you are all this time later with your high and mighty point of view and your ancestors were getting the same hate you spew to those who would be immigrants today.

SHAME! SHAME!

Go look in the mirror if the face looking back at you isnt Native or Mexican your ancestors had somebody pizzing down their back and telling them its raining just like you are now!

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
Its so funny...

All you immigrant haters might take a step back and think about your position on this issue.

Are you Native American?
Are you Mexican?

Guess what my immigrant hating friends at some point YOUR family member who was an immigrant on these shores was just as hated!

Now here you are all this time later with your high and mighty point of view and your ancestors were getting the same hate you spew to those who would be immigrants today.

SHAME! SHAME!

Go look in the mirror if the face looking back at you isnt Native or Mexican your ancestors had somebody pizzing down their back and telling them its raining just like you are now!

Gpa

quote:

All you immigrant haters might take a step back and think about your position on this issue

Hey Trike Boy, not one person on here said anything about immigrants except you, we are talking about thing called illegal immigrants and that is a different subject.

I see that the supporting argument for a immigration has turned emotional by trying to pull at our sense of empathy relating what our family members did to become citizens to the president granting it to our now resident criminals. The notion seems to be that we have some moral obligation to welcome foreigners to our county with open arms. I don't agree. When we look at history, we have typically been selective about who we welcome and when. If bringing a person or their family would be beneficial to the united states they we more likely to be granted citizenship. Thes e peoe brought skills or abilities that we needed at the time. Today the criteria seems to be that if your first act coming here was criminal, then please feel free to stay! Just what we need! You don't need to speak our language as we will speak yours. If you have nothing to offer, we will support you indefinitely. If you have children we will school them for free in their native language.
Again how is this good for the USA?

Hey Trike Boy, ever heard of this?

The Executive Branch is restricted by the Constitution from bypassing Congress and unilaterally rewriting laws;

Au contraire Dayton. I'm a third generation immigrant. Have the papers and pictures from my grandparents (maternal) at Ellis Island just prior to the outbreak of WWI. I don't hate immigrants.The big difference is that they came over LEGALLY, met all the guidelines established by law, including a two year wait. As I remember gramps told me he never felt hatred towards him but he did realize that his native Italian language was of no use in the USA.

I'm not anti immigrant, I am against illegal immigrants being given special privileges and rights they DID NOT EARN. This decision made by the potus is going turn around and bite him in the arse.

Obama seems to think he's President of South America (and Central America and Mexico). We can't afford his compassion or his empathy for foreigners; his first loyalty should be for legal American citizens, not gate crashers who will never assimilate and only want our good jobs and free stuff.

Dayton, you are dueling with a bunch of IDIOTS on this board.

Definitely NOT Christians.

Poor Marie, don't like messicans living here but its alright her family of cigar rollers to invade this country.

No Ellis Island for her family and friends.......................

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:
Dayton, you are dueling with a bunch of IDIOTS on this board.

Definitely NOT Christians.

Poor Marie, don't like messicans living here but its alright her family of cigar rollers to invade this country.

No Ellis Island for her family and friends.......................

Here we go again with the emotional argument. And throw in the accusation that we are not Christian if we don't support giving amnesty to criminals. That's pretty weak. I'm still looking for the answer to my simple question above....How is this good for the United States? That is how governing decisions should be made right?

Idiot he said as he looked in mirrior



Gma/Bob/ZERO/Barney Fife/Daytona Big Wheels

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:
Dayton, you are dueling with a bunch of IDIOTS on this board.

Definitely NOT Christians.

Poor Marie, don't like messicans living here but its alright her family of cigar rollers to invade this country.

No Ellis Island for her family and friends.......................

And the stupid voter speaks!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:
Dayton, you are dueling with a bunch of IDIOTS on this board.

Definitely NOT Christians.

Poor Marie, don't like messicans living here but its alright her family of cigar rollers to invade this country.

No Ellis Island for her family and friends.......................

Here we go again with the emotional argument. And throw in the accusation that we are not Christian if we don't support giving amnesty to criminals. That's pretty weak. I'm still looking for the answer to my simple question above....How is this good for the United States? That is how governing decisions should be made right?

Who supports amnesty for criminals?

Provide where you got that from?

Come on, don't be childishly coy. If you support making illegals (criminals) legal then you support amnesty for criminals. And of course you are 110% on board with that. Surely you have some half truths or rhetoric to refute this.

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:
Come on, don't be childishly coy. If you support making illegals (criminals) legal then you support amnesty for criminals. And of course you are 110% on board with that. Surely you have some half truths or rhetoric to refute this.

Canted already answered. Come on Bob. Are we discussing or you just waving your political weiner around?

The country has more working hands than we have jobs for.
How is letting people who came here illegally.....regardless if they work or not....good for the country?
If the answer is that they do jobs that legal citizens don't want, then maybe....just maybe there are other problems to look at. Maybe these jobs need to pay more so that others will take them? Maybe we need more incentive for people to take available jobs and get off of the dole?
But you aren't going to try to discuss this.