Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
462 days ago.
by absolem
Kendall78
#1

Executive Orders: Good, bad or depends?

In recent months there have been a lot of discussion about the President and his use of Executive Orders. The question is, are Executive Orders a good thing or bad? If one party within Congress is hindering government so badly, is the President correct to use the Executive Order to go around them?

 
 

Member Comments

Kendall78

Perhaps, though I can't fault a person for coming to the greatest nation on Earth and try to make their way here.

Posted 698 days ago.

Kendall78

"We have no idea who is coming across that border,"

That just means you don't know if they are liberal, marxist or even looking out for a handout.

Posted 698 days ago.

mythravere

It was really interesting to see things get spun around.

The angle I was reading from was the liberal one on Huffington Post.

This kind of action can also be observed on right leaning news sites also.

No either this playing to people's fears is intentional or its just showing how utterly fractured the people are in this nation.

I can't decide which is more troubling.

Posted 698 days ago.

mythravere

I mean the psychology of manipulation is well known.

Take these judgements handed down by the SCOTUS the other day.

I watched in real time as those rulings came down and what they meant.

By late that evening the headlines on those rulings was in all honesty not reflective of the reality of those rulings.

It was all gloom and doom. Which honestly wasn't warranted at all.

Posted 698 days ago.

mythravere

"This is just another cynical attempt to further divide and conquer"

Oh I think they are succeeding.

What if all the media was controlled by one centralized group who used each sides ingrained fears to keep them from uniting around any kind of a common cause. There by dividing and conquering the people.

I am really starting to wonder if that isn't the real game being played.

I am starting to wonder that if all of this political strife is the result of a campaign to make the people of nation more controllable.

Posted 698 days ago.

mythravere

Alright here's a question. Given how many latin American countries are ran. Corruption and overrun with drug cartels. Can anyone really blame them for heading north?

Wouldn't you try and get away from that too?

Posted 698 days ago.

Kendall78

"more conservative Latin Americans would probably not risk"

I would figure most illegals are usually young adults and are as conservative as most young adults that come from a conservative background. They are naturally more apt to taking risks and have liberal ideas. However, it is highly likely that as they get older they will revert to the conservative background they came from.

Posted 699 days ago.

Kendall78

Keep in mind that I'm calling them conservative by cultural background and not politically. I agree that since the Republicans are demonizing them, they probably have no reason to vote Republican.

Tired, you are making an error in equating conservative with being morally good. Neither liberal or conservative has a monopoly on morals.

The notion that illegals are here to get free stuff is an error because it also implies they just want to stay in a welfare state. There is NO evidence that these people want that.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm the descendant of a pioneer who "broke into his neighbor's house," fought his neighbor, and took away the land his neighbor used. Am I ashamed of this? No.

Maybe I'm much more conservative than my ancestor, who certainly didn't resist change and wasn't afraid of uncertainty, even to the point of living in fear of being scalped with his family.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

that's "CONSERVATIVES" generally resist change and uncertainty.

I don't make value judgments in saying this. Our society would be in chaos if we didn't have people, like conservatives, who resist change and uncertainty. Also, we wouldn't have a chance to improve our institutions if we didn't have people, like liberals, who embrace change and uncertainty.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

As for the comparison with Latin American families being Catholic and possibly conservative, I wouldn't try to make that link.

Here's why:

Do we have any evidence that those who cross the border illegally are representative of Latin Americans? I doubt it. In fact, I would suspect the opposite--more conservative Latin Americans would probably not risk it because, according to research, generally resist change and uncertainty.

ww w.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

And crossing the border is surely that!

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

"They will be reliable Democrat voters for the foreseeable future and Obama knows this."

That seems true, with a caveat--I wouldn't say politics is Obama's only or even his highest motivation. I can't read his mind and, to my knowledge, he hasn't said so.

Some would say that's because the Republicans have "demonized" them. As for that, I am glad somebody is standing up for people like me on this issue.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

Well, I wouldn't call it a lie if it has no proof.

In my experience, few of these illegal immigrants are what I would call "conservative." I say this because I think they consume a disproportionate share of government benefits. (I think--states don't release these figures) And they always seem to be clamoring for government action on their behalf. So I wouldn't call them conservative, at least not in the small-government sense.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

Which of Kendall's statements are you calling a lie?

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

Believe you're right, Kendall. Seems like most of us here agree on this issue.

Too bad Obama doesn't agree, and Congress won't do anything.

Posted 699 days ago.

Kendall78

"And come down on employers who hire illegals."

I think that will do more for the cause than anything else. No more slaps on the wrist for those that hire illegals. $10K fines per illegal worker and I am certain businesses will quit hiring. And if there is no economic opportunity for them, many won't come. Not all...but many won't.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

My work takes me to areas with many illegal immigrants, and I consider them a threat to our democratic principles. Many learn how to exploit our laws and get government handouts before they even come. I certainly don't favor giving such people voting rights.

And this crap about "doing jobs Americans won't do" is just that. We'll do any kind of work.

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

Take the immigration issue that someone mentioned.

Congress should pass a law to hamstring Obama. All they have to do is remove the ambiguities upon which capitalizes.

I'd like to do what Tiredofit suggests and "deport them now." It may not be practical to do so, but I'd like to try.

And seal the border tight. And come down on employers who hire illegals. And stop this nonsense about legally importing a bunch more. And repeal the provision in the 14th Amendment that grants "birthright citizenship."

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

Ever hear of the phrase "power abhors a vacuum"?

Congress won't act, so Obama does. I'm not saying this to defend Obama, for I don't prefer this sort of centralized authority. I'm just saying that's the nature of things.

Someone without legal authority will always step in when someone with legal authority fails to exercise authority. It's a Biblical principle: “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.”

Posted 699 days ago.

harryanderson

"Of course if a person falls into the 'President is taking too much power' perspective, then who it to blame if not Congress itself?"

That's right, Kendall. That's my point. Congress has ceded much of its authority. I mentioned the power to declare war. Congress didn't declare war in Iraq, and it didn't declare war in Afghanistan, or Bosnia, or any of a number of recent conflicts.

It's almost like Congress is afraid to declare war, and instead pass an "authorization for the use of military force" that is broad in scope. In Iraq, Byrd offered amendments "that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq" and "To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States."

These amendments failed 86-14 and 66-31, respectively.

The Senate voted to expand the powers of the presid

Posted 699 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or