^^^(Will cover H.C. separately if I do replay to that.)
Note: Before all you other people start up again, YES I know elements of racism exist in the opposition, as do they in the support; Don't hastily generalize your cherry picking. Thanks.
At mimartin: Obama's name isn't. All I was getting at as relates to the opposition: what he has said vs what ever is in the original bill vs whatever is currently (soon to be formerly) being proposed that shows inconsistency is going to add fuel to the fire of the opposition. I know this is not always a fair assessment but that's how the general population sees it regardless who is in office. They call it like so, and with that as a basis it's harsh but not necessarily unreasonable; so I would say don't jump to accuse the opposition. (not you personally mim, you are one of the more reasonable folks I've met online or otherwise ;))
So the only other thing would be what the president knows and when. I can almost hear you saying "assume as you may, you don't make accusations until you have good evidence." I'm not debating that, nor accusing.
People can certainly be going off of old info (which is not out of the picture since proposals are getting changed almost as often as underwear) :dev9:
I am contending the following conditionals:
1) if the president says something thinking he knew, no fault (except the weasel who changed it)
2) if he said something was currently yay/nay when he didn't actually know, that paints him unknowing, possibly naive
3) if the president knows what's currently proposed and claims contrary, that paints him dishonest
4) if he knew, claimed consistent (and murphy's laws are lenient at that moment), he's golden.
These always seem to be applicalbe. Sure, they *are* subject to error--nothing is entirely without this fault.
GTA:SWCity you seem confused about what President Obama said, “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” That has nothing to do with HR 3200 except where Joe Wilson tried to use this logic in his idiotic defense. Unless Obama has been demote to the House of Representatives, then HR 3200 has nothing to do with his statement.
So all 4 of your conditionals are false.
The big problem with BO's statement about illegals was that while the plans being formulated in Congress (BO is letting Congress take the lead and apparently hasn't crafted any bill himself, so to speak) claim to exclude illegals, no enforcement mechanism is allowed to garuntee it. If you can't check an illegal's status before deciding whether they qualify, they will get the care they are supposedly excluded from by the bill. Either BO knew this and was being disingenuous or he figured that by the time the final bill kicked in he'd have pulled a Reagan and amnestied all the current illegals, thus sidestepping the charge that any bill would give illegals insurance coverage.
No, No, No. He said what he said, but he is still wrong because he is Obama. Got it. It isn't racism it is Obamaism. :xp:
No, he's wrong b/c he's a politician......and we all know how they lie. :xp: :D
GTA:SWCity you seem confused about what President Obama said, “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” That has nothing to do with HR 300 except where Joe Wilson tried to use this logic in his idiotic defense. Unless Obama has been demote to the House of Representatives, then HR 3200 has nothing little and vaguely to do with his statement.
Fixed. :D
Ok. In that specific case, yes.
So all 4 of your conditionals are false.
Actually, not in the general sense. They could apply here: He's proposing but not crafting a bill, so it still stands to reason. Just now a new set of circumstances. ;)
I fail to see how Presidents Obama’s statement is even vaguely related to HR 3200. Had he said “the reforms ‘we’ are proposing…” then there may be a case for what is being implied. However the use of “I’m” is specific and does not imply any wiggle room. Analyzing that phrase and coming up with anything different is only wishful thinking on the opposition’s part.
. They could apply here: He's proposing but not crafting a bill, so it still stands to reason. Correct, but he does have a certain power over the finished product. He can either sign, not sign or veto the finished bill, so his input should be important to congress considering the controversy of the proposed bill (no matter the final version) and the difficulty that would lead to in overriding a Presidential veto.
Unfortunately, "he" doesn't appear to be proposing anything on his own. Presiding over whatever monstrosity that comes out of the process w/a essentially a red pencil or rubber stamp doesn't make him innocent of anything. Given that his next agenda after "comprehensive healthcare reform" is "comprehensive immigration reform" and the fact that he's likely to just apply a blanket amnesty (and we pretty much saw what a bad move that was by Reagan), that isn't an unfair interpretation of his MO. Think about all those potential democrat votes coming down the pike.....That and overlooking the whole "enforcement mechanism" issue which is rendered moot if he gets his likely immigration amnesty w/in the next year.
Unfortunately, "he" doesn't appear to be proposing anything on his own. Presiding over whatever monstrosity that comes out of the process w/a essentially a red pencil or rubber stamp doesn't make him innocent of anything. Given that his next agenda after "comprehensive healthcare reform" is "comprehensive immigration reform" and the fact that he's likely to just apply a blanket amnesty (and we pretty much saw what a bad move that was by Reagan), that isn't an unfair interpretation of his MO. Think about all those potential democrat votes coming down the pike.....That and overlooking the whole "enforcement mechanism" issue which is rendered moot if he gets his likely immigration amnesty w/in the next year.
Aside from Faux News or some other trash rag that does nothing but make things up or spout out opinions, could you kindly give me a link to where Obama has said "amnesty for all" or at the very least "amnesty for some", and yes, I want to see the word "Amnesty" in his words. Not something that sounds like it, or could be interpreted as it, but actually him saying he'll give or he wants to give Amnesty to illegal immigrants. Maybe I just missed it, Google is just turning up right-wing blogs saying he will without quoting sources.
Frankly, given this administration's aversion to transparency and for parsing, I'm sure he wouldn't come out and say "I hereby declare that all formerly illegal residents in the US are now de facto citizens". Now, since I didn't claim he definitely will, but conditioned it with "likely", I'm under no obligation to provide a smoking gun to justify my gut reaction. Further, as this is not a court of law, the concept "innocent till proven guilty" is irrelevant as he's not being formally charged with anything. If you wish to understand this man, look at the people who actually surround him (not just the ones he rattled off during the campaign). And don't bother trying to reference McCain b/c he was on the same side of the immigration issue as BO in the big pic, so would have been just as bad on that issue. You should be well aware that little is seldom handed to you on a silver platter when talking politics, where vague language is often the rule and even life's blood of politicians. If you wish to find the words "Obama/amnesty", you can do your own search. ;)
Frankly, given this administration's aversion to transparency and for parsing, I'm sure he wouldn't come out and say "I hereby declare that all formerly illegal residents in the US are now de facto citizens". Now, since I didn't claim he definitely will, but conditioned it with "likely", I'm under no obligation to provide a smoking gun to justify my gut reaction. Further, as this is not a court of law, the concept "innocent till proven guilty" is irrelevant as he's not being formally charged with anything. If you wish to understand this man, look at the people who actually surround him (not just the ones he rattled off during the campaign). And don't bother trying to reference McCain b/c he was on the same side of the immigration issue as BO in the big pic, so would have been just as bad on that issue. You should be well aware that little is seldom handed to you on a silver platter when talking politics, where vague language is often the rule and even life's blood of politicians. If you wish to find the words "Obama/amnesty", you can do your own search. ;)
So in short: Everything you say has no foundation in reality and is only your own personal paranoia and fear-mongering, but you still want us all to believe everything you say as though it's all tru because "politics is complicated".
I'm sorry, gut reactions don't count here. You think someone is going to do something, you find where they said it, hired people who said it, supported it, or was against people who were against it. You find it, you show it. You don't say: "Well BO is a liberal and he's friends with liberals and liberals want amnesty for illegals." And then defend it by accusing others of not understanding the system that your gut apparently has an ear for.
So, if you'd like to defend your point, do it. If you'd like to do so by saying "It was just IMO." Fine. Don't do it by saying I don't understand politics.
OK, let's not take this thread off topic by discussing liberal vs. conservative media, unless they relate to the topic. We don't need another version of last fall's discussion. If there is a question on whether someone is stating opinion vs. fact, please ASK them for clarification. We start getting heated rhetoric when people start making assumptions about another person's intentions (which may or may not be erroneous) and then makes a response based on that assumption. Let's keep focused on the subject and make sure to word things carefully so they aren't taken the wrong way. Thanks.