"The Immigration Address....Let the GOP Madness Begin!"

[ricomsmith77]

Originally posted by ricomsmith77 at "The Immigration Address....Let the GOP Madness Begin!"
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the nation on how he is going to move forward on Immigration Reform through Executive action.  He will lay out his plan on how he will go about fixing this problem legally, and what's at stake when he does it

Comments

[policraticus]

Bookmarked for when President Ted Cruz decides to "just stop enforcing the ACA," cause, you know, he doesn't like it.

[mahnmut]

Bookmarked for the day when Ted Cruz drops out of the presidential race.

[policraticus]

(Heads up: I don't really think Cruz will win. I don't particularly want him to, either. I just picked his name cause he is particularly toxic for liberals. I might as well have said "Santorum" or "Bush" or "Rubio." The point isn't the president, it is that "what is good is sauce for the goose is sauce for gander" is all well and good,... for certain values of sauce. )

A president's precedent is a many edged sword.

[mahnmut]

Yes yes, the backpedaling on your initial bet has also been duly noted!

[policraticus]

My bet that this kind of over reach will come back and bite the Democrats in the ass is in no way back peddled. In fact, I will double down. Even if Obama "wins" this debate and gets his way, the process loses and since the US government is built on a foundation of process, which protects everyone from everyone else, abandoning that seems very dangerous to me, mostly because I'm not smart enough to believe I know better than everyone else and that my choices are invariably right, good and just.

[mahnmut]

So is O'bummer a Hitler or a sissy? You GOPians can't have it both ways, ya know.

[policraticus]

Since I haven't said he is either Hitler or a sissy I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[mahnmut]

No, but the conservative narrative has alternated between a malevolent dictator who's hell-bent on destroying the Holy Nation, and a spineless sissy who's bowing to the leaders of lesser foreign nations and licking their boots on a never-ending apologetic spree. Or something.

So I was wondering which of these two extremes you tend to lean towards. Because, ya know, the world is so much easier to comprehend when it's painted in those black-and-white colors. Or at least that's how it would seem if you watch FOX.

[flaming_goat]

Those two things are not contradictory positions. Just saying.

[mahnmut]

Yep, parallel realities, schizo identities and all that. Indeed, we're all familiar with Ayn Rand's works.

[flaming_goat]

I don't know what you're talking about, but someone could be a malevolent dictator who is also a spineless sissy when dealing with foreign leaders. Those aren't opposites as you claim.

[mahnmut]

Not when they're the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Give me one example of a dictator of a superpower who's been a malevolent oppressor at home and a spineless sissy abroad. I can wait.

[flaming_goat]

I think you're missing the point, but if you insist on being bound to only what has happened and not try to think about what could happen, then one example is Saddam Hussein after losing in Kuwait.

[mahnmut]

I've been seeing historical examples being rubbed into my face all throughout this thread, so you'll forgive me if I'm sticking to what's tangible, as opposed to playing the game of "if"-s and "might"-s.

Your response still continues to fail to address anything of what I said, though.

[flaming_goat]

You didn't say anything of substance, which was my point from the beginning. I'm sorry you can't see that.

[mahnmut]

I see you're desperate to keep deflecting. So be it.