Quote :

"What's his deal... Soon as he loses congress, he nominates a new fiery attorney General, comes out big for net neutrality, now he's making bold moves on immigration, next thing you know he'll be Obama the presidential candidate again."

Because for some stupid reason, he decided to play along with the Clay Aiken democrats and not do anything that might piss off southern democrat constituents in the runup to the election. It was a dumb strategy, and I think he knew it was a dumb strategy, but as the "leader" of the party that got him elected, he had no choice I guess. Now he's just doing all the things he probably wishes he'd done 4 months ago.

This comment is pretty great,

Quote :

"“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on US gas prices,” he said, growing visibly frustrated."

[Edited on November 14, 2014 at 12:33 PM. Reason : :]

11/14/2014 12:26:23 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-merle-haggard-on-his-kennedy-center-honor-meeting-obama-and-oprah-and-more-20101228

Here's the full interview with Merle, pretty interesting. I didn't realize conservatives had been perceiving him as arrogant and conceited... that's not the impression the democrats seem to have of him.

But I guess the right wing media constructs whatever strawman of obama they need in order to suit the occasion.

11/14/2014 12:43:01 PM

oh yeah, they've been calling him king obama from the beginning, and fox news likes to use pictures of him that look like he's sticking his nose in the air.

11/14/2014 12:46:32 PM

Looks like the New Yorker notices the change too:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-good-week

11/14/2014 12:52:22 PM

https://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-doubles-immigration-keystone-pipeline/story?id=26905484

Here's obama talking about the pipeline.

11/14/2014 12:55:33 PM

any other stories from 4 years ago we wanna post?

(I say that as someone who RT'd that Merle story yesterday)

11/14/2014 1:35:09 PM

Whoops didn't realize it was so old.

11/14/2014 2:07:36 PM

whoops, I saw it posted on fb today.

11/14/2014 4:14:28 PM

It was on Reddit today

11/14/2014 4:46:15 PM

Bomani Jones tweeted it yesterday

11/14/2014 5:09:57 PM

Now I feel like a worn out cog in the wheel of social media.

11/14/2014 5:15:45 PM

Quote :

"I didn't realize conservatives had been perceiving him as arrogant and conceited... "

wat? i hope that is sarcasm.

11/16/2014 1:32:45 AM

In the real world, Obama has been meek and conciliatory.

I recall them wishing Putin was our president, and them mocking his last from behind on Syria (?). Stop it doesn't make sense they could believe he was simultaneously arrogant and conceited.

11/16/2014 6:36:32 PM

Quote :

"I recall them wishing Putin was our president, and them mocking his last from behind on Syria (?). Stop it doesn't make sense they could believe he was simultaneously arrogant and conceited."

Are you having a stroke?

11/16/2014 6:47:10 PM

People definitely said that Putin is a better leader, and that they wished he was the President. That's real.

11/16/2014 7:57:29 PM

^^ ha just realized... Auto correct pretty well butchered that post.

Should say:

Quote :

"mocking his LEAD from behind on Syria (?). it doesn't make sense they could believe he was simultaneously arrogant and conceited. "

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/

this is not an in apt characterization of Obama to me.

[Edited on November 16, 2014 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2014 8:52:16 PM

so there are old videos of pelosi and obama both praising gruber by name in obamacare discussions / debates

pelosi - 2009

obama - 2006

i assume this is unimportant

11/17/2014 7:29:12 PM

that's just faux news telling lies

11/17/2014 10:36:55 PM

"Working class whites"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html

The article doesn't really discuss solutions, but it seems like this might just be a lost demographic, until someone learns how to communicate to these poor whites that they would actually be helped as much or more than blacks under progressive policies. But this would require overcoming their resentment for black people.

11/19/2014 2:05:43 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXhO_-e3bM

11/20/2014 8:05:31 PM

Based on his speech, where he wants to deport "felons, not families," I guess this means that anyone caught more than once of being in the country illegally will be deported since the second offense is considered a felony.

Too bad the first offense isn't.

I had a friend from Brazil spend about 6 years and thousands of dollars to become legal. Guess the joke is on him.

11/20/2014 8:30:00 PM

Wish he would grow some bawse and release the senate torture report

11/20/2014 8:39:57 PM

You realize the Obama admin has deported waaayy more people than bush has? Just this year he'll deport more people than through all the bush years, despite having a lower rate of illegal immigration.

And I also don't get the logic of "people in the past had a hard time, therefore people in the future should suffer too." Just seems really narrow minded, jealous, spiteful mentality. It's not practical at all too considering te nature of the problem trying to be solved.

11/20/2014 8:48:40 PM

Let's not kid ourselves here...you can't be that stupid. How many of those 5 million illegalnomore immigrants will be needing assistance?

You can't just let in 5 million people with a 3rd world mentality and expect them to prosper. Shit you liberals can't even bring our own poor out of poverty. You expect to bring in 5 million more poor people on a permanent basis and think it is practical?

11/21/2014 6:54:33 AM

God damn you are dumb

11/21/2014 7:33:03 AM

uh, those OMG ELEGALL EMEEGRINTS are already here... already paying [some] taxes, already paying for housing, food, entertainment, transportation, etc, and working jobs that others don't. They're already a part of society. They are your kids' friends. They are why you have food to eat. From a pure capitalistic view, these people are nearly a perfect gold mine. I don't see a problem with the plan, as laid out, unless there is actually some overreach of his executive powers, which I doubt, but I won't pretend to know enough about that. Not that it really has anything to do with the issue at hand, but my all means, please, republicans, continue to deflect the issue.

[Edited on November 21, 2014 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2014 8:48:58 AM

not to mention that Republicans will have the House and Senate, so they can just pass legislation to fix what they don't like

11/21/2014 9:02:14 AM

lol

11/21/2014 9:06:07 AM

Guy I heard on the radio said it best. "I don't think of myself as an illegal alien, I'm an illegal resident.". These people already live, work, and breed here, they aren't going anywhere and it's practically impossible to make them all leave anyway. The least we can do is make sure they are paying taxes.

^Yep, all the rancor will be directed at the President, while a bill that could have passed nearly a year ago continues to sit on Boehner's desk. And then they go on TV talking about "will of the people". It is beyond me how anyone isn't completely fed up with these assholes.

11/21/2014 9:07:23 AM

Quote :

"Let's not kid ourselves here...you can't be that stupid. How many of those 5 million illegalnomore immigrants will be needing assistance? You can't just let in 5 million people with a 3rd world mentality and expect them to prosper. Shit you liberals can't even bring our own poor out of poverty. You expect to bring in 5 million more poor people on a permanent basis and think it is practical?"

Ha ha is this a joke? You copying and pasting from Facebook or something?

Most immigrants now are Asian, the conservatives favorite minority group. Statistically, and psychologically, immigrants are inherently more motivated and entrepreneurial than the typical American.

These people are already here working, harder in most cases than you and I work, contributing to their local economies. They aren't disheveled refugees, we aren't going into Mexico and bringing people here.

11/21/2014 9:39:46 AM

What he's done isn't amnesty. But it's a foot in the door.

11/21/2014 9:55:59 AM

HE MIGHT AS WELL LET IN MUSLIMS

11/21/2014 9:59:03 AM

lets just go ahead and clarify we are making fun of racist white trash (not republicans or conservatives necessarily).

11/21/2014 10:02:46 AM

^^^If that's your argument, anything short of deporting every illegal alien is a step towards amnesty.

The fiscal conservative part of me disagrees, to the extreme, with mass deportation. The sensible solution is to get the law abiding, working, and productive illegals into the system, provide them with some type of temporary legal status, and if they'd like, to be put in the back of the line to apply for permanent status or citizenship.

Wait, that plan sounds familiar.

[Edited on November 21, 2014 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2014 10:03:28 AM

the problem is that he doesn't see why that isn't a good solution

11/21/2014 10:05:30 AM

i heard this today:

"well the precedent thats been sat(?) will work good for the next republican president. just undo obamacare by executive order."

11/21/2014 10:05:40 AM

Quote :

"Hal Rogers, from Kentucky, said the primary agency for implementing Obama’s imminent executive order is “entirely self-funded through the fees it collects for any of its operations” and is therefore not operationally funded by Congress. “Therefore, the appropriations process cannot be used to ‘de-fund’ the agency,” he said, adding that the US citizenship and immigration services would continue to operate in the event of a government shutdown."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/20/ted-cruz-cicero-speech-denouncing-obama-immigration

11/21/2014 10:06:06 AM

^^that person is stupid

[Edited on November 21, 2014 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2014 10:08:04 AM

From http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2014/11/facts-president-obamas-immigration.html:

WARNING: FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS

Immigration Reform

ATTENTION: Before you can argue that the government has violated a law, you must actually READ the law.

FACT: Congress has the exclusive power to pass laws regarding immigration (U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8, Cl. 4). http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

FACT: Executive Power of the US is vested in THE PRESIDENT, which means the President, not Congress, executes the immigration laws (U.S. Const. Article II, Sect. 1, Cl. 1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

FACT: Congress can give a certain amount of discretion to the Executive regarding the enforcement and implementation of federal law – so long as the statute provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the Executive. If this occurs, then Executive decisions regarding enforcement of the law do not constitute impermissible legislative action. Instead, it is merely execution. This rule is called the “nondelegation doctrine.” Congress does not unlawfully delegate its legislative powers to the Executive if the legislation contains coherent rules for the Executive to follow. See Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001).
https://supreme.justia.com/.../federal/us/531/457/case.html

FACT: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a federal statute that establishes legal rules and requirements regarding immigration and naturalization (8 U.S.C. Sect. 1103-1778).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12

FACT: Consistent with the Constitution, the INA gives the Executive Branch (President, Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Secretary of State) the power to enforce immigration laws (8 U.S.C. Sect. 1103-1104). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1104

FACT: THE EXECUTIVE CAN “CANCEL” THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN DEPORTABLE INDIVIDUALS. The INA allows the Attorney General to cancel removal (deportation) or adjust the status of certain categories of undocumented individuals. The statute EXPLICITLY SPELLS OUT THE CRITERIA for doing so. Thus, the statute provides an “intelligible criteria” for the Attorney General to follow. (8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(a)-(b)). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229b

CONDITIONS FOR CANCELATION OF REMOVAL: More specifically, the INA allows the Attorney General to cancel the removal of a deportable individual who (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (3) has not been convicted of an offense [defined in several sections of the statute]; and (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. This straightforward provision indisputably states an intelligible principle. (8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(b)) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229b

FACT: THE EXECUTIVE CAN GIVE TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS TO CERTAIN DEPORTABLE INDIVIDUALS. The INA also allows the Attorney General to grant “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) to deportable individuals from certain countries that the Attorney General has placed on a TPS list. As required by Supreme Court doctrine, the INA gives SPECIFIC guidelines – or an intelligible principle – for the Attorney General to follow when determining whether to give TPS designation to a country. The statutory factors include serious conditions in the individual’s home country, like armed conflict; natural disasters; a request for temporary protected status by the country; or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that preclude the safe return of the individual, so long as TPS does not conflict with the interests of the US. (8 U.S.C. Sections 1254a-i) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a

FACT: THE EXECUTIVE MUST PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR TPS INDIVIDUALS. The INA also provides that the Attorney General SHALL “authorize the alien [who has received TPS designation] to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with an ‘employment authorized’ endorsement or other appropriate work permit.” (8 U.S.C. Section 1254(a)(1)(B)) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a The current TPS listing is here: http://www.uscis.gov/.../tempo.../temporary-protected-status

SUMMARY: FEDERAL LAW allows the Executive to cancel the removal of deportable individuals, give TPS designation to countries and individuals from those nations. Federal law also REQUIRES the Executive to give work permits to individuals who receive TPS designation.

FACT: The media descriptions of President Obama's proposals regarding immigration demonstrate that these proposals would lie squarely within the statutory powers given by Congress to him, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General. http://www.nytimes.com/.../obamacare-unlikely-for...

Specifically, according to media descriptions, President Obama’s orders would allow individuals “who have lived in the United States for at least five years” to apply for relief from deportation and for certain individuals who have not committed crimes to apply for work permits. These are all powers that lie within the discretion of the Executive – AND THAT ARE CLEARLY STATED IN THE INA.

Because the President’s orders are consistent with the powers granted to the Executive by Congress, he is not making law. Instead, his orders would only enforce law, using the clear guidelines Congress provided in the INA.

OPINION: If you have NOT read the INA but you have concluded that President Obama’s proposed immigration orders violate federal law or the Constitution, then you are contributing to one of the worst problems in our society: pontificating about important legal and policy issues without a basic understanding of the underlying rules that govern the issues. You need to grow up, read, and grow an open mind. You are a victim of your own stubborn refusal to accept any FACTS that conflict with your world view. In other words, you are an uninformed, anti-intellectual, partisan hack. But, perhaps, you already know that.

11/21/2014 10:58:40 AM

he is shredding the constitution. Glen Beck told me so.

11/21/2014 11:11:18 AM

Yeah, the WH's legal team wasn't sitting around on it's the thumbs the past 6 months. The legal authority for this is pretty ironclad, and doesn't create or expand on existing precedent.

11/21/2014 11:36:18 AM

glen beck told me the flu shot gave me gay aspergers

ill follow him to the gates of beaner hell and back

11/21/2014 11:36:38 AM

don't worry, aaronburro will be here soon to explain why it wasn't legal

and his argument will start with a definition of some word

11/21/2014 11:44:13 AM

take out that last paragraph in that word wall, and you could settle a lot of people down. no matter how factual information is, if you present it like a dick nobody will want to listen.

11/21/2014 1:14:37 PM

any delicate flower who reads all that then dismisses it because of the not very offensive, clearly marked opinion at the bottom already had their mind made up and doesn't care anyways

11/21/2014 1:41:08 PM

YOU'RE OPINION IS LIKE A ASSWHOLE. IT STINK'S.

11/21/2014 2:19:07 PM

^^ so, any soap box poster ever?

11/22/2014 11:36:08 AM

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

11/22/2014 8:00:22 PM

^ as stated multiple times before, sheer numbers don't always tell the whole story. A hypothetical executive order that says "put Charmin in every toilet stall on gov't buildings" is worlds different than a hypothetical one that says "The Supreme Court shall consist of 4 more justices, whom I will appoint", yet they would both count as "one executive order." Clearly this is an absurd example (aside from the fact that FDR basically tried the latter), but I think it gets the point across.

11/22/2014 8:30:36 PM

Congress doing something is preferable, but that's a pretty weak line of attack. It's fairly clear what Obama is doing is very precedented and legal.

Seems like a bad strategy for republicans too since the perception is they are do nothing.

It would be nice if republicans would actually offer solutions than just trying to make Obama look bad. Considering the government shutdown, hurting the American people to score a political shot is not beyond them.

11/22/2014 11:19:12 PM