A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to allow the implementation, for now, of President Obama's executive action that could shield from deportation as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.
Funny how the news is on
FOX's website, but not a peep on the Clinton News Network (CNN).
Go to NBC's website, nothing on the front page.
Go to CBS's website, nothing on the front page.
Go to ABC's website, nothing on the front page.
Good, immigration reform or lack there of should start and end with congress. Executive overreach is nothing new with Obama but it needs to be reigned in.
There are links on the NBC and CNN home pages news site.
Conservative beacons like NPR, NY Times and MSNBC news have it on their front pages.
This ruling does not block the executive action permanently, it denies a stay on an injunction against the bill requested by the Obama administration. You have a point in that some networks did not trumpet this news as the death knell of the executive order, which is what FOX appears to be doing.
Because it's not. This will drag on quite a bit more.
Quote:Good, immigration reform or lack there of should start and end with congress. Executive overreach is nothing new with Obama but it needs to be reigned in.
You, good sir, are not behaving like the sheep you must be, as a progressive.
Quote:You, good sir, are not behaving like the sheep you must be, as a progressive.
I wonder what dear leader will do with me now
Quote:Good, immigration reform or lack there of should start and end with congress. Executive overreach is nothing new with Obama but it needs to be reigned in.
It's just too bad we won't see reform both sides of the aisle can agree on. You even have disagreements that are interparty on what should be done. Maybe if our political system hadn't degenerated into "Team
Jacob Republican" and "Team
Edward Democrat" , we'd see a solution.
Quote:Good, immigration reform or lack there of should start and end with congress. Executive overreach is nothing new with Obama but it needs to be reigned in.
I agree with you and it does need to be pointed out. President Bush did use Executive Orders just like President Obama does. As far as I'm concerned, this power needs to go away from the presidency altogether. That is not the way the our system of government is supposed to work.
That being said, President Obama did take it "over the top" when he stated that he "has a phone and a pen" in order to get things done. This was just an outright mock of our system of government.
Regarding immigration reform, a plan was laid out but shot down by members of "the establishment".
Quote:I agree with you and it does need to be pointed out. President Bush did use Executive Orders just like President Obama does. As far as I'm concerned, this power needs to go away from the presidency altogether. That is not the way the our system of government is supposed to work.
That being said, President Obama did take it "over the top" when he stated that he "has a phone and a pen" in order to get things done. This was just an outright mock of our system of government.
Regarding immigration reform, a plan was laid out but shot down by members of "the establishment".
It was mocking for sure. I took at as then stop me. The GOP could have done a great thing won a ton of appeal to the masses had they spent their time in power recently pushing to stop all future abuse of executive authority. The problem is they know they will eventually win again. Maybe not next time or the time after that or maybe they will. They want the authority in case the rolls are reversed.
Quote:I first browsed the news sites when I got home from work (about 2:30) and saw the story on FOX first. I then did my usual thing and browsed all of the other news sites that I frequent, and noticed that this story was not apparent on any of their sites. Obviously when I posted this thread, some finally picked up the story and updated their pages.
I would venture to say that "most people" agree with what FOX News does since it seems to dominate the ratings.
Two and a Half Men also dominated the ratings.
Not to mention that conservatives tend to have FOX News as their primary news source, while Liberals are more likely to branch out. They're also more likely to get their news online. And some people watch fox news for the entertainment value.
Quote:It's just too bad we won't see reform both sides of the aisle can agree on. You even have disagreements that are interparty on what should be done. Maybe if our political system hadn't degenerated into "Team Jacob Republican" and "Team Edward Democrat" , we'd see a solution.
There was a compromise proposed last summer that got shot down by the establishment people in both parties. A couple of "show stoppers" on the left is immediately securing our borders and forcing those here illegally to take a proper path to citizenship or obtaining a proper work visa. The "show stoppers" on the far right basically includes the fact that people aren't immediately deported and allowing them a proper path to citizenship.
Once again, look at the "establishment" types that are in congress on both sides of the aisle.
Quote:It was mocking for sure. I took at as then stop me. The GOP could have done a great thing won a ton of appeal to the masses had they spent their time in power recently pushing to stop all future abuse of executive authority. The problem is they know they will eventually win again. Maybe not next time or the time after that or maybe they will. They want the authority in case the rolls are reversed.
Once again, being the good little progressive that you are, you blame it on the GOP. Who had complete power in President Obama's first term that could have put an end to this practice? The same could be said regarding filibuster rules, majority votes, etc.
The democrat party could have done a great thing had they spent their time in power recently pushing to stop all future abuse of executive authority.
Quote:Once again, being the good little progressive that you are, you blame it on the GOP. Who had complete power in President Obama's first term that could have put an end to this practice? The same could be said regarding filibuster rules, majority votes, etc.
The democrat party could have done a great thing had they spent their time in power recently pushing to stop all future abuse of executive authority.
Wow. Sheesh even when people agree with you, you have to find a way to disagree. Just can't help yourselves can you.
I didn't blame it on the GOP, I said they would have won a lot of goodwill given their complaints in recent history and their recently taking control of congress. Why so sensitive when I am agreeing with you?
Quote:There was a compromise proposed last summer that got shot down by the establishment people in both parties. A couple of "show stoppers" on the left is immediately securing our borders and forcing those here illegally to take a proper path to citizenship or obtaining a proper work visa. The "show stoppers" on the far right basically includes the fact that people aren't immediately deported and allowing them a proper path to citizenship.
Once again, look at the "establishment" types that are in congress on both sides of the aisle.
The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that doubled the number of Border Patrol agencies as well as would have created 700 miles of fencing. It also would have required employers to use the E-verify system. I don't think Boehner even ever brought it to vote in the house. It had some bipartisan support in the senate.
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (was hard to find the name)
Quote:The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that doubled the number of Border Patrol agencies as well as would have created 700 miles of fencing. It also would have required employers to use the E-verify system. I don't think Boehner even ever brought it to vote in the house. It had some bipartisan support in the senate.
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (was hard to find the name)
That was it (I believe that is the one that I am thinking of).
Here is something to ponder, how many of the current presidential candidates actually supported the bill? Of those that supported the bill, who would you classify as an "establishment" politician?
Bonus question. What is so wrong with the bill?
Quote:That was it (I believe that is the one that I am thinking of).
Here is something to ponder, how many of the current presidential candidates actually supported the bill? Of those that supported the bill, who would you classify as an "establishment" politician?
Bonus question. What is so wrong with the bill?
Presidential Candidates that voted for the bill:
Marco Rubio
Lindsey Graham
Bernie Sanders
What is so wrong with the bill? That I don't know. I know Boehners main problem with it was the path to citizenship. (Which required immigrants to wait 13 years, to pay all back taxes, not being convicted of any felony and less than 3 misdemeanors, as well as learn English) Which is why he won't introduce it into the house.
Quote:Presidential Candidates that voted for the bill:
Marco Rubio
Lindsey Graham
Bernie Sanders
What is so wrong with the bill? That I don't know. I know Boehners main problem with it was the path to citizenship. (Which required immigrants to wait 13 years, to pay all back taxes, not being convicted of any felony and less than 3 misdemeanors, as well as learn English) Which is why he won't introduce it into the house.
So there is the next clue as far as who to potentially vote for.
John Boenher is simply just another member of the establishment. He needs to go just as much as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, Chris Christie (not in current federal government) as well as several others.
The problem is the "un-educated" or "un-informed" voter. They simply vote a party ticket and are not informed or up-to-date regarding issues. That's how these people have made their careers in government. Honestly, how have any of the above managed their "career" in government? It's because we allow stupid people to vote.
Quote:So there is the next clue as far as who to potentially vote for.
John Boenher is simply just another member of the establishment. He needs to go just as much as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, Chris Christie (not in current federal government) as well as several others.
The problem is the "un-educated" or "un-informed" voter. They simply vote a party ticket and are not informed or up-to-date regarding issues. That's how these people have made their careers in government. Honestly, how have any of the above managed their "career" in government? It's because we allow stupid people to vote.
Somebody brilliant said, "The problem with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so."
Boy, did he know what he was talking about.
Quote:So there is the next clue as far as who to potentially vote for.
John Boenher is simply just another member of the establishment. He needs to go just as much as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, Chris Christie (not in current federal government) as well as several others.
The problem is the "un-educated" or "un-informed" voter. They simply vote a party ticket and are not informed or up-to-date regarding issues. That's how these people have made their careers in government. Honestly, how have any of the above managed their "career" in government? It's because we allow stupid people to vote.
The problem isn't uneducated voters. Many voters are educated and well-informed. The problem is there's too much money involved in politics. Democracy is for sale, and all that really matters to these politicians (even the one who supported the bill like Reid) is getting re-elected. They no longer represent the best interests of their citizens, but their own interests. I think we both agree on campaign finance reform and on term limits. They fear losing an election if they do something unpopular with their constituents. Which turns it into a rule by majority, rather than a representative democracy. Too much money comes from unions and corporations, who's best interests aren't often aligned with people (which is why I would never label a corporation or a union as a person).