• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How crazy is Rick Perry?

EatLeadCommie said:
Which you clearly don't.
Click to expand...

am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee] Show IPA
noun, plural am·nes·ties.
1.
a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2.
Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
3.
a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
verb (used with object), am·nes·tied, am·nes·ty·ing.
4.
to grant amnesty to; pardon.

Amnesty is given without conditions. The GOP supported Senate bill has many conditions. clearly you don't understand the word.
 
RJKarl said:
am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee] Show IPA
noun, plural am·nes·ties.
1.
a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2.
Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
3.
a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
verb (used with object), am·nes·tied, am·nes·ty·ing.
4.
to grant amnesty to; pardon.

Amnesty is given without conditions. The GOP supported Senate bill has many conditions. clearly you don't understand the word.
Click to expand...

lol. Even in your quoted dictionary definition, it doesn't say "without conditions." Are you going to claim the Reagan amnesty in the 80s was not, in fact, a general amnesty? It too had conditions. Setting "conditions" is the way for politicians to try and say they aren't actually granting an amnesty when they are. It's semantic bullshit employed by dufuses like John McCain.

What is forgiven in this case is the unlawful entry and/or ongoing unlawful presence. Not mere lapses in status which happen and which can be granted a waiver, but blatant disregard for the inspection process and maintenance of status. Reagan did it in 86 for those who had been in the US for such and such a period of time and could document it (often fraudulently). Clinton did it in 2000 with the LIFE Act, granting an amnesty to anybody who could come up with a job offer and labor certification before the end of April 2001 (again, often fraudulently). Both had conditions, both were amnesties.
 
RJKarl said:
So exactly how do we round up, try, process and expel 12,000,000 people?

Where do we come up with the trillions of dollars than this will cost?

How many years are you willing to do this?

What do we do with the massive facilities we'll have to build to house all these people after the people are deported?
Click to expand...

You round them up and expel them over time. You don't give them a free pass at their removal hearing like the current administration. However much it will cost, at least those tasked with enforcement will actually be enforcing rather than turning a blind eye. In the mean time, we actually have border security, something given mere lip service for the last 40 years. Deploy the national guard in border states. Governors can and should do this. We don't do shit about building facilities to people who are deported because they are deported.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
lol. Even in your quoted dictionary definition, it doesn't say "without conditions." Are you going to claim the Reagan amnesty in the 80s was not, in fact, a general amnesty? It too had conditions. Setting "conditions" is the way for politicians to try and say they aren't actually granting an amnesty when they are. It's semantic bullshit employed by dufuses like John McCain.

What is forgiven in this case is the unlawful entry and/or ongoing unlawful presence. Not mere lapses in status which happen and which can be granted a waiver, but blatant disregard for the inspection process and maintenance of status. Reagan did it in 86 for those who had been in the US for such and such a period of time and could document it (often fraudulently). Clinton did it in 2000 with the LIFE Act, granting an amnesty to anybody who could come up with a job offer and labor certification before the end of April 2001 (again, often fraudulently). Both had conditions, both were amnesties.
Click to expand...

Reagan's was an amnesty. It had no conditions.

The new law has a ton of restrictions, rules, fees and taxes.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
You round them up and expel them over time. You don't give them a free pass at their removal hearing like the current administration. However much it will cost, at least those tasked with enforcement will actually be enforcing rather than turning a blind eye. In the mean time, we actually have border security, something given mere lip service for the last 40 years. Deploy the national guard in border states. Governors can and should do this. We don't do shit about building facilities to people who are deported because they are deported.
Click to expand...

WOW just wow.....this Administration has deported more people than any other.

By the way where do we get the replacement workers for them?
 
RJKarl said:
Reagan's was an amnesty. It had no conditions.

The new law has a ton of restrictions, rules, fees and taxes.
Click to expand...

It had plenty of conditions. You had to demonstrate that you had been in the US X amount of time, you had to provide letters from the PDs of any place you had lived in for any length of time, and you had to go through a two step process and pay your filing fees. You are simply wrong. Every benefit granted by immigration has a set of conditions that have to be met. Simply saying "this bill has conditions so it isn't an amnesty," doesn't make it so.
 
Far from a Perry fan, but he's handling Obama's visit to Texas better than Obama. Perry said he won't show up for a plane side handshake photo op, but wants an in depth off camera discussion on the refuge situation. Makes a lot more sense than Obama going to Texas for two fundraisers and not visiting the border.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Far from a Perry fan, but he's handling Obama's visit to Texas better than Obama. Perry said he won't show up for a plane side handshake photo op, but wants an in depth off camera discussion on the refuge situation. Makes a lot more sense than Obama going to Texas for two fundraisers and not visiting the border.
Click to expand...

Nothing Perry has ever said or done makes you think Perry is capable of having a serious discussion. He's always been a sideshow hack.
 
Can't see how Obama can prioritize fundraisers over visiting the border while he's in the same state. W was justifiably roasted for flying over the areas devastated by Katrina rather than meeting with people on the ground. Just wish people would get out of their bubble where their "side" can do no wrong while criticizing the other party for doing the same thing. Can't see how Wisconsin legislature fleeing to Illinois was heroic, but the government shutdown over Obamacare was terrible. If you don't have the votes, there's not a whole lot you can do and both parties were immature in both cases, but still had hyper-partisan supporters for their actions.

For the record, Perry is a clown. That doesn't excuse Obama for going to fundraisers rather than visiting the border.
 
Texas is a huge state. It may not be simple as just stopping by while he's in town.

And I don't know what good visiting the border does. Photo op with border agents? Interview with some refugees? Read a story to some Honduran kids?
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Can't see how Obama can prioritize fundraisers over visiting the border while he's in the same state. W was justifiably roasted for flying over the areas devastated by Katrina rather than meeting with people on the ground. Just wish people would get out of their bubble where their "side" can do no wrong while criticizing the other party for doing the same thing. Can't see how Wisconsin legislature fleeing to Illinois was heroic, but the government shutdown over Obamacare was terrible. If you don't have the votes, there's not a whole lot you can do and both parties were immature in both cases, but still had hyper-partisan supporters for their actions.

For the record, Perry is a clown. That doesn't excuse Obama for going to fundraisers rather than visiting the border.
Click to expand...

This is silly. The fundraisers have been in place for months or maybe even a year. Millions of dollars have changed hands. It's virtually impossible to change them.

What's going on now at the boarder has been happening for many years. For the first time, a POTUS is actually doing something about it. His biggest problem is the opposition wants no part of their responsibility to work together to come up with a solution.

In fact, as you know, the POTUS can't do what most other POTUS have done in disaster situations and act on his own. The GOP has threatened to sue him for acting.
 
TownieDeac said:
You've been reading too much Breitbart if you're really latching on to the "Katrina moment" soundbyte. When Bush was on the ground in New Orleans, he was really roasted for "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." And Katrina was a one-time incident; the border with Mexico has been there for...a while.
Click to expand...

So criticizing Obama now makes someone a Breitbart acolyte?!? Thanks for reinforcing my point about myopic hyper-partisans. Imagery matters-the 50 to 100 aholes who were screaming at buses full of women and children in Murrieta will hurt the GOP. A quick trip to the border would be helpful, especially since he's only in Texas for fundraising.
 
RJKarl said:
By the way the glasses just makes Perry look like an idiot in glasses.
Click to expand...

Perry needs to add the fake nose and mustache to his glasses and change his voice because everybody knows it's still Rick Perry. At least with a better disguise, people might think it was some other dumb guy spouting nonsense.
 
PhDeac said:
Texas is a huge state. It may not be simple as just stopping by while he's in town.

And I don't know what good visiting the border does. Photo op with border agents? Interview with some refugees? Read a story to some Honduran kids?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get the point of going to border. We have a lot of officials there already, what's the point of Obama physically being there? I highly doubt a picture of Obama with some refugees would spark congress to action since they've done exactly nothing on immigration since the Bush administration. It's pretty easy to blame the President, but the story of his presidency, IMO, is the complete lack of a congress to do anything other than bitch about Obama and collect a pay check.
 
Do people realize what a significant undertaking it is to get the President anywhere? If he had gone to the border, you'd be calling it a BS photo op and criticizing him for wasting tax dollars to secure the illegal immigrant vote for the Democrats.

It's getting old, and it's getting us nowhere.
 
That's ridiculous. Seriously. I don't even like Perry, but that's ridiculous.
 
sounds like Perry was playing real hardball politics, and the hard ball just got served into his court. Live by the sword, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top