Obama makes surprise video visit for opening of "Gay Games" - WWTTFF!!!!

[Necrosis]

Yes Vince, because there's nothing else in this world going on that he should be addressing. 

This is a logical fallacy, there is always something he should be addressing, thus no matter what he addresses you will bitch.

I know it's hard for you to imagine but some people really struggle with this, in fact homosexual suicide is through the roof, it's mostly related to people like you.

[Soul Crusher]

This is a logical fallacy, there is always something he should be addressing, thus no matter what he addresses you will bitch.

I know it's hard for you to imagine but some people really struggle with this, in fact homosexual suicide is through the roof, it's mostly related to people like you.

Where are gays under attack in this country?  If they kill themselves off - at this point - that's on them, not anyone else. 

[LurkerNoMore]

Sounds like you. Half hour with your wife 10 hours on GB.

LOL!!!!

[avxo]

Yes Vince, because there's nothing else in this world going on that he should be addressing.  

There's plenty of other, important things he should be addressing - although perhaps it's better than he's not, but I digress.

I am curious about one thing though: do you oppose something specific he said about this issue in his video message, or are you just generically upset because... well... dammit, it's Obama!

In other words, is there anything that Obama could do that would cause you to not bitch and moan?

[syntaxmachine]

Why not fight for a average taxpayer by stopping the illegal alien invasion

S.744 calls for securing the border and the CBO projects it would reduce illegal immigration and save the federal government $820 billion over the next two decades. It has widespread bipartisan support among elites and passed in the Senate over a year ago, and only a certain obstructionist sect in the House prevents its passage and implementation. Care to guess which party the sect belongs to?

[avxo]

S.744 calls for securing the border and the CBO projects it would reduce illegal immigration and save the federal government $820 billion over the next two decades. It has widespread bipartisan support among elites and passed in the Senate over a year ago, and only a certain obstructionist sect in the House prevents its passage and implementation. Care to guess which party the sect belongs to?

Quiet you. Trying to confuse us with your logic and your numbers and your even-handed, non-partisan, rational and pragmatic approach to politics!

[Dos Equis]

S.744 calls for securing the border and the CBO projects it would reduce illegal immigration and save the federal government $820 billion over the next two decades. It has widespread bipartisan support among elites and passed in the Senate over a year ago, and only a certain obstructionist sect in the House prevents its passage and implementation. Care to guess which party the sect belongs to?

Isn't this the bill that grants amnesty to millions of illegals?

[JOHN MATRIX]

S.744 calls for securing the border and the CBO projects it would reduce illegal immigration and save the federal government $820 billion over the next two decades. It has widespread bipartisan support among elites and passed in the Senate over a year ago, and only a certain obstructionist sect in the House prevents its passage and implementation. Care to guess which party the sect belongs to?

 

[avxo]

Isn't this the bill that grants amnesty to millions of illegals?

Amnesty isn't quite the right term.

The bill would allow those in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, who have not been convicted of a felony or three or more misdemeanors, have paid taxes, pass background checks, and pay application fees plus a penalty and are not otherwise inadmissible to the United States to apply for some kind of "provisional" status. Even if they do successfully apply fr and are granted provisional status, those with provisional status are not eligible for Medicaid, food stamps, ObamaCare and other means-tested "benefits". In addition, they will not receive social security credits for their previous unauthorized employment (I believe that there's some kind of exception to this, but I can't find the language in the bill).

I don't particularly like S.744's approach, but I don't particularly dislike it either. I think it's pragmatic which is rare to see from the Federal Government.

You may see things differently through your partisan-tinted glasses.

[Dos Equis]

Amnesty isn't quite the right term.

The bill would allow those in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, who have not been convicted of a felony or three or more misdemeanors, have paid taxes, pass background checks, and pay application fees plus a penalty and are not otherwise inadmissible to the United States to apply for some kind of "provisional" status. Even if they do successfully apply fr and are granted provisional status, those with provisional status are not eligible for Medicaid, food stamps, ObamaCare and other means-tested "benefits". In addition, they will not receive social security credits for their previous unauthorized employment (I believe that there's some kind of exception to this, but I can't find the language in the bill).

I don't particularly like S.744's approach, but I don't particularly dislike it either. I think it's pragmatic which is rare to see from the Federal Government.

You may see things differently through your partisan-tinted glasses.

Yes I see things differently.  I don't believe anyone who has come to the U.S. illegally should be given amnesty under the guise of a "pathway to citizenship."  There are too many people who did it the right way.  There are too many people still standing in line to do it the right way.  It sends the wrong message to the millions who are not only here illegally, but are still trying to come here illegally.  

I see things this way through my child of legal immigrant parents glasses.  

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Yes Vince, because there's nothing else in this world going on that he should be addressing. 

I don't think he spent much time taping a 1 minute message...except for maybe 1 minute.  The outrage on this is pathetic and you're better than that, Coach

[Soul Crusher]

I don't think he spent much time taping a 1 minute message...except for maybe 1 minute.  The outrage on this is pathetic and you're better than that, Coach

I'm not.        

[avxo]

Yes I see things differently.  I don't believe anyone who has come to the U.S. illegally should be given amnesty under the guise of a "pathway to citizenship."  There are too many people who did it the right way.  Too are too many people still standing in line to do it the right way.  It sends the wrong message to the millions who are not only here illegally, but are still trying to come here illegally.  

I see things this way through my child of legal immigrant parents glasses.

Surprisingly enough I don't disagree with you. Two good friends of mine, who came here legally about a decade ago and have been busting their asses and are being productive members of society ever since have had to deal with the craziness that are U.S. immigration and "path to citizenship" policies. Of of them, despite doing everything right, is likely to not have her green card renewed, despite having never taken a dime of help, having held a productive job for years, while rising through the ranks, working for an employer which sponsored and continues to sponsor him, and owning a bought and paid for house, a bought and paid for car and raising a precocious two-year old.

The notion that people who broke the law to come here could end up being allowed to stay while she is deported, or might become citizens before her is, to put it mildly, insane.

With that said however, the reality is that deporting 10,000,000 people isn't likely to happen. And even if it were likely to happen, it's unclear that it should. In many cases, it arguably shouldn't. Consider the (admittedly trite) example of a kid who was brought across the borders by his parents as an infant and is now 10 or 12 years old. This kid was brought here through no fault of his own and knows no other life. To argue that he should be deported to Mexico and go back in life borders on crazy.

It's not an easy "problem" to solve one way or another. Allowing people who came here illegally leaves a bad taste, but it makes sense in a lot of cases and may, ultimately, be our only "real" option.

[Dos Equis]

Surprisingly enough I don't disagree with you. Two good friends of mine, who came here legally about a decade ago and have been busting their asses and are being productive members of society ever since have had to deal with the craziness that are U.S. immigration and "path to citizenship" policies. Of of them, despite doing everything right, is likely to not have her green card renewed, despite having never taken a dime of help, having held a productive job for years, while rising through the ranks, working for an employer which sponsored and continues to sponsor him, and owning a bought and paid for house, a bought and paid for car and raising a precocious two-year old.

The notion that people who broke the law to come here could end up being allowed to stay while she is deported, or might become citizens before her is, to put it mildly, insane.

With that said however, the reality is that deporting 10,000,000 people isn't likely to happen. And even if it were likely to happen, it's unclear that it should. In many cases, it arguably shouldn't. Consider the (admittedly trite) example of a kid who was brought across the borders by his parents as an infant and is now 10 or 12 years old. This kid was brought here through no fault of his own and knows no other life. To argue that he should be deported to Mexico and go back in life borders on crazy.

It's not an easy "problem" to solve one way or another. Allowing people who came here illegally leaves a bad taste, but it makes sense in a lot of cases and may, ultimately, be our only "real" option.

I agree there are no easy answers.  I would love to send all of them (illegals) home, but I know that isn't realistic.  We don't have the resources to round them all up and deport them. 

What is the answer?  I don't really know, except I don't like the amnesty approach. 

I'd start with amending the Constitution to get rid of anchor babies.  That's more of a prospective solution, but it would probably deter a lot of them from coming here illegally. 

Your friend's situation is outrageous. 

[avxo]

I agree there are no easy answers.  I would love to send all of them (illegals) home, but I know that isn't realistic.  We don't have the resources to round them all up and deport them. 

What is the answer?  I don't really know, except I don't like the amnesty approach. 

I'd start with amending the Constitution to get rid of anchor babies.  That's more of a prospective solution, but it would probably deter a lot of them from coming here illegally. 

Your friend's situation is outrageous. 

Yeah, it's not easy. And the polarization and hyper-partisan environment makes it all the more difficult to sensibly deal with the issue. Consider, you and I, for example. We don't see eye to eye, but we could probably sit down and hash the situation out and say: "well, the goal is to get as many out as possible, but we need some exceptions for cases (a), (b) and (c). Make it so!" But the politicians, egged on by the "extreme" subset of their base and a 24-hour newscycle that condenses everything sensational sentence fragments can't do that. Which is how we end up where we are...

And yeah, it's pretty outrageous; sadly, not uncommon.

[Dos Equis]

Yeah, it's not easy. And the polarization and hyper-partisan environment makes it all the more difficult to sensibly deal with the issue. Consider, you and I, for example. We don't see eye to eye, but we could probably sit down and hash the situation out and say: "well, the goal is to get as many out as possible, but we need some exceptions for cases (a), (b) and (c). Make it so!" But the politicians, egged on by the "extreme" subset of their base and a 24-hour newscycle that condenses everything sensational sentence fragments can't do that. Which is how we end up where we are...

And yeah, it's pretty outrageous; sadly, not uncommon.

I agree we could probably figure this out, but we're not beholden to the big money that put people in office, not trying to stay in office, pandering, etc. 

[avxo]

I agree we could probably figure this out, but we're not beholden to the big money that put people in office, not trying to stay in office, pandering, etc. 

Sad, isn't? This is why I'm disgusted with politics and politicians.

[Dos Equis]

Sad, isn't? This is why I'm disgusted with politics and politicians.

So am I, which always has me wondering why I follow politics so closely.