The Democrat Convention 2012

[Tim]

That's just the way you choose to read it. I wish I could scrub the partisan filters from your eyes. I never indicated one way or the other whether I agree with the limits on immigration. It's not relevant. I never made any claim of the rightness or wrongness of the current law. That is also not relevant.

What is relevant is that

1. a constitutional federal law is in place.
2. The President of the United States is required by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
3. The President of the United States publicly and proudly refuses to carry out his sworn duty.

So let me ask you a serious question.
What exactly is the federal law and how does it apply? Does the president have any leeway on this topic at all? Is there anything he can "bend on" here or is it set in stone/law?

I guess the key question is what exactly is the law?

 

[Minor Axis]

The difference between the DNC and the RNC is utterly amazing. Odds are that it's the people who are hopeful, not angry who will win elections. As Clinton said last night, the GOP boils with anger in comparison. I really like the notion that Romney views human suffering as debits and credits on a balance sheet. I'm also surprised at the distinct difference between the GOP and the Dems regarding their support of our soldiers.

 

[robdawg1]

The difference between the DNC and the RNC is utterly amazing. Odds are that it's the people who are hopeful, not angry who will win elections. As Clinton said last night, the GOP boils with anger in comparison.

interesting enough they said that about the Democrats during Bush. However the difference was that we had a reason to be! Foreign War under false pretenses, Leaking names of american agents as political revenge, closed door meetings with corrupt corporations....glad we don't have to deal with that anymore....hopefully for 4 more years!!

 

[Accountable]

Our country was founded as a melting pot for immigrants!!

True, and irrelevant on this point.

He is returning the American promise back to her people.

He is the executor of federal law, and he is breaking federal law!! Does that mean nothing to you? We have legal processes in this country. Scratch that. We HAD legal processes in this country. The process is not in place only when convenient, and it is not okay to ignore it when it becomes hard.

he is once again telling the world to send us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.

Bullshit. He is displaying the most cynical pandering I've seen in my lifetime. He is trying to buy votes.

How is what he has done illegal? he issued an executive order which stands as a legal document!

He is not a legislator. The purpose of an executive order is to detail how law enforcement is to be carried out (executed, get it?). It is not to create law, defy law, or repeal law.

This is no less egregious than a police officer killing someone he has decided is guilty but fears will probably not be convicted.

 

[Accountable]

So let me ask you a serious question.
What exactly is the federal law and how does it apply? Does the president have any leeway on this topic at all? Is there anything he can "bend on" here or is it set in stone/law?

I guess the key question is what exactly is the law?

You are not this thick ... at least not until it comes to your dems. I seriously doubt you can listen to this with any kind of critical thought, but here it is in his own words.

[video=youtube;rq6SBllGJcs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq6SBllGJcs[/video]

He asked for the Dream Act. He didn't get it. So he acts as a spoiled child ... or a King ... and does what he wants anyway. News flash: He Ain't King!

 

[Accountable]

She truly is, her speech really moved me and reinstilled that hope I once had in Obama.

[video=youtube;o8R5GvwUFU8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8R5GvwUFU8[/video]

 

[Joe the meek]

As Clinton said last night, the GOP boils with anger in comparison.

Total bull shit. The "democrats" are just as ****ed up as the republicans are.

Obama is nothing more than a decent speaker.

I've had enough of him the last 4 years, time to try something new. Not that it will make a difference.

 

[Tim]

You are not this thick ... at least not until it comes to your dems. I seriously doubt you can listen to this with any kind of critical thought, but here it is in his own words.

He asked for the Dream Act. He didn't get it. So he acts as a spoiled child ... or a King ... and does what he wants anyway. News flash: He Ain't King!

I asked you a very serious question. What is the law and is this child breaking it by being here?

Seriously, what is the law?

I tried looking it up and it's not that easy, please, someone show me where it's clearly written out.

 

[The Man]

Total bull shit. The "democrats" are just as ****ed up as the republicans are.

Obama is nothing more than a decent speaker.

I've had enough of him the last 4 years, time to try something new. Not that it will make a difference.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Alien Allen]

and you forgot how Obamas administration trashed the bankruptcy laws

he brags about saving GM and Chrysler which is a total crock of shit.

He forced them into bankruptcy. And left in the dust creditors that got fucked over while giving the goods to the UAW. That an allowing Delphis retirees to get fucked up the ass also.

The lies that are spewed do not all come from the right. There were plenty this week at the convention in addition to the above.

I listened to a county executive from the tri county area today who is a democrat. I would be proud to vote for him. He actually gives a damn about his job and constituents and does not give a shit if he has to ask for help from our republican governor or his district representative. He considers himself a moderate but I would call him honorable and worthy of his job. Unlike the vast percentage of the rest of the elected scumbags who pander

 

[Alien Allen]

anybody catch this tid bit

nice spin job

liar, liar, your pants are on fire

[h=2]Says she was misquoted and "didn’t say" that the Israeli ambassador said "what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel."[/h]

[h=1]Wasserman Schultz said she didn't make comments about Israel's ambassador, but she did[/h]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...man-schultz-said-she-didnt-make-comments-abo/

 

[Jackass master]

Watched it played out with both videos this morning. They actually believe the Axelrod doctrine that anything can be spun to it's exact opposite.

 

[Accountable]

I asked you a very serious question. What is the law and is this child breaking it by being here?

Seriously, what is the law?

I tried looking it up and it's not that easy, please, someone show me where it's clearly written out.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...11-title8-chap12-subchapII-partIV-sec1227.pdf

http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2011/2011usc08.pdf

 

[Tim]

Ok, the first document has 9 pages and the second one has 538 pages...

Have you read them or do you understand the law?

Please don't think I'm being a smart ass here, it's not my intention. But if you look at this objectively, how many times do you here about illegal aliens and how they are breaking the law, but what law? What exactly is the law and how is it worded?

Did they break a law at one point or are they continuing to break a law?
For instance, If I speed and get a ticket I am not an illegal driver. Or is it equivalent to me speeding ALL the time???

I would just love to read the law... yeah, not all 538 pages of legaleze

 

[The Man]

I asked you a very serious question. What is the law and is this child breaking it by being here?

Seriously, what is the law?

I tried looking it up and it's not that easy, please, someone show me where it's clearly written out.

Seriously? You doubt we have laws for illegal immigrants.
Do you not think that detention and deportation of said individuals in the past wouldn't have caused a big stink by the ACLU as well as the bleeding liberals..not to mentions thousands of lawsuits.

Are you trying to intentionally be difficult?

 

[The Man]

Ok, the first document has 9 pages and the second one has 538 pages...

Have you read them or do you understand the law?

Please don't think I'm being a smart ass here, it's not my intention. But if you look at this objectively, how many times do you here about illegal aliens and how they are breaking the law, but what law? What exactly is the law and how is it worded?

Did they break a law at one point or are they continuing to break a law?
For instance, If I speed and get a ticket I am not an illegal driver. Or is it equivalent to me speeding ALL the time???

I would just love to read the law... yeah, not all 538 pages of legaleze

You insisted that you wanted to know exactly how it was worded /as you refuse to accept that a law was broken...then you whine when you get the actual documents placed before you in the forum.:24:

 

[Accountable]

Ok, the first document has 9 pages and the second one has 538 pages...

Have you read them or do you understand the law?

Please don't think I'm being a smart ass here, it's not my intention. But if you look at this objectively, how many times do you here about illegal aliens and how they are breaking the law, but what law? What exactly is the law and how is it worded?

Did they break a law at one point or are they continuing to break a law?
For instance, If I speed and get a ticket I am not an illegal driver. Or is it equivalent to me speeding ALL the time???

I would just love to read the law... yeah, not all 538 pages of legaleze

You had no problem at all that the ACA was over 2000 pages.

No, if you get a ticket you are not necessarily an illegal driver, but if you drive faster than the speed limit you are ... and you continue to be as long as you continue to break that law. A traffic cop would be derelict in his duty if he refused to pull you over. Responsible citizens would complain about such a policeman, insisting that he be fired or even brought up on charges. I don't think anyone would cheer him.

"O!" you say in desperation to defend the clearly illegal act, "what if there are extenuating circumstances?" The cop would have to pull you over to ascertain that. A cop could never justify, say, letting every yellow Nova break the speed limit simply because it was a yellow Nova.

eta: ... and certainly not without a law to back him up!

 

[Tangerine]

You had no problem at all that the ACA was over 2000 pages.

No, if you get a ticket you are not necessarily an illegal driver, but if you drive faster than the speed limit you are ... and you continue to be as long as you continue to break that law. A traffic cop would be derelict in his duty if he refused to pull you over. Responsible citizens would complain about such a policeman, insisting that he be fired or even brought up on charges. I don't think anyone would cheer him.

"O!" you say in desperation to defend the clearly illegal act, "what if there are extenuating circumstances?" The cop would have to pull you over to ascertain that. A cop could never justify, say, letting every yellow Nova break the speed limit simply because it was a yellow Nova.

eta: ... and certainly not without a law to back him up!

Responsibile citizens complain all the time about cops wo are overzealous, speed traps, and ramped-up parking enforcement. Police cars sit on roadsides all over this country every day and pick and choose which cars they observe exceeding the speed limit that they feel are eggregious enough to warrant pulling over and ticketing. Do we think that cop is derilict in his duty or bring him up on charges for making the call that 2 Mph over the speed limit isn't worth pulling someone over? No. We accept that they realize their time and resources are better spent chasing down the guy doing 25 or 30 mph over the speed limit, because they are a bigger risk to the safety of themselves and others.

That's not too different from our immigration enforcement police at the moment. Those who are simply here and otherwise minding their own business don't make the radar start beeping like crazy. Those who commit felonies and become risks to the safety and well-being of others attract a LOT of attention - and that is exactly who ICE has made their priority to find, hold and deport as much as they can.

This analogy is even better when you realize that the "crime" of being on US soil without a valid visa is legally equivalent to a speeding ticket. It's a civil violation, not a criminal one.

 

[Accountable]

Responsibile citizens complain all the time about cops wo are overzealous, speed traps, and ramped-up parking enforcement. Police cars sit on roadsides all over this country every day and pick and choose which cars they observe exceeding the speed limit that they feel are eggregious enough to warrant pulling over and ticketing. Do we think that cop is derilict in his duty or bring him up on charges for making the call that 2 Mph over the speed limit isn't worth pulling someone over? No. We accept that they realize their time and resources are better spent chasing down the guy doing 25 or 30 mph over the speed limit, because they are a bigger risk to the safety of themselves and others.

That's not too different from our immigration enforcement police at the moment. Those who are simply here and otherwise minding their own business don't make the radar start beeping like crazy. Those who commit felonies and become risks to the safety and well-being of others attract a LOT of attention - and that is exactly who ICE has made their priority to find, hold and deport as much as they can.

This analogy is even better when you realize that the "crime" of being on US soil without a valid visa is legally equivalent to a speeding ticket. It's a civil violation, not a criminal one.

I haven't done the indepth research, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying we would never applaud a cop for declaring he won't do his sworn duty, then bring up a law breaker to give a speech on how not doing his duty is such a noble thing.

It's the Rule of Law. It is the foundation of our society, and you would piss on it for convenience rather than doing the hard work of getting the law changed.

 

[Tangerine]

I haven't done the indepth research, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying we would never applaud a cop for declaring he won't do his sworn duty, then bring up a law breaker to give a speech on how not doing his duty is such a noble thing.

It's the Rule of Law. It is the foundation of our society, and you would piss on it for convenience rather than doing the hard work of getting the law changed.

Actually, I would argue that the foundation of our society was saying "No" to laws which were unreasonable and unfair to the people.