Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[Neoteny]

Guys, help me come up with a card for "so offended that someone on the internet thinks I'm a racist that I will lose all coherency and ignore all their arguments." I think we could make a full deck from this website alone.

[GreecePwns]

Race card card?

ITT, John says something about X group he disagrees with by generalizing, gets called out on it, and soon he will say he was misunderstood and that people mischaracterize him. As always.

[john9blue]

Race card card?

ITT, John says something about X group he disagrees with by generalizing, gets called out on it, and soon he will say he was misunderstood and that people mischaracterize him. As always.

where did this happen?

also neo, i did say something racist in your link, but i still do believe that what i said is true. also it's like two years old.

[Neoteny]

Race card card?

ITT, John says something about X group he disagrees with by generalizing, gets called out on it, and soon he will say he was misunderstood and that people mischaracterize him. As always.

where did this happen?

also neo, i did say something racist in your link, but i still do believe that what i said is true. also it's like two years old.

I clicked "search users posts" and searched for racist. The f*ck do you want from me. I don't actually have a card catalogue of your racism. All my card catalogues are full of LoK/MLP crossover fanfics.

[Woodruff]

We must mean two different things by "race card." You see, to me, "playing the race card" means using race or racial tension to gain political or personal advantage, or, as closely applicable as possible to a forum, declaring racism in the place of an argument. I think, when you racists talk about "the race card," you mean just calling out racism in general.

Indeed. That's how I see it as well.

[Woodruff]

I sort of feel like the old-fashioned American tradition of informed citizenry should be something toward which you strive.

You didn't mention skin color....is everything okay?

I will strive to be informed.
Thanx

That should be a fun change of pace!

i agree, these conversations will be a lot smoother when people stop playing the race card.

You seem to have missed my reference.

[john9blue]

I sort of feel like the old-fashioned American tradition of informed citizenry should be something toward which you strive.

You didn't mention skin color....is everything okay?

I will strive to be informed.
Thanx

That should be a fun change of pace!

i agree, these conversations will be a lot smoother when people stop playing the race card.

You seem to have missed my reference.

i modified your reference to make it more accurate

[john9blue]

We must mean two different things by "race card." You see, to me, "playing the race card" means using race or racial tension to gain political or personal advantage, or, as closely applicable as possible to a forum, declaring racism in the place of an argument. I think, when you racists talk about "the race card," you mean just calling out racism in general.

Indeed. That's how I see it as well.

so you're going to be just like neo, and pretend to denounce the use of baseless racism in order to win an online argument, then proceed to call your opponents racists?

[Phatscotty]

They both have some serious issues when it comes to definitions.

Think about what they are trying to do everytime they call someone a racist. They are trying to make it a reality that you cannot criticize Obama, period......and that is only based on the color of his skin. That is where the true racism lies.

They talk about race every single day, just like you would expect from a real racist. They are unable to stfu about race.

[Woodruff]

We must mean two different things by "race card." You see, to me, "playing the race card" means using race or racial tension to gain political or personal advantage, or, as closely applicable as possible to a forum, declaring racism in the place of an argument. I think, when you racists talk about "the race card," you mean just calling out racism in general.

Indeed. That's how I see it as well.

so you're going to be just like neo, and pretend to denounce the use of baseless racism in order to win an online argument, then proceed to call your opponents racists?

Huh? Learn how to read.

[Phatscotty]

I could understand him. I think some of the troubles rest with not wanting to understand.

[Woodruff]

They both have some serious issues when it comes to definitions.

Classic!

Think about what they are trying to do everytime they call someone a racist. They are trying to make it a reality that you cannot criticize Obama, period......and that is only based on the color of his skin. That is where the true racism lies.

What? What kind of a half-wit are you that you believe I want to make it a reality that Obama can't be criticized? Are you seriously so lost in the depths of your own disease that you don't realize that just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I agree with Obama?

They talk about race every single day, just like you would expect from a real racist. They are unable to stfu about race.

Perhaps you can point out the last three times, prior to today, that I talked about race or racism that wasn't a direct response to you trying to claim the race card, Phatscotty. Go ahead...give it a go! (Hint: This is where you disappear and don't respond.)

[Woodruff]

I could understand him. I think some of the troubles rest with not wanting to understand.

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

So were you going to answer the question, call me a troll, or is it disappear-time already?

[Phatscotty]

I could understand him. I think some of the troubles rest with not wanting to understand.

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

So were you going to answer the question, call me a troll, or is it disappear-time already?

Fine, what is the question

[Woodruff]

I could understand him. I think some of the troubles rest with not wanting to understand.

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

So were you going to answer the question, call me a troll, or is it disappear-time already?

Fine, what is the question

From back on page 2 of this thread (so you may need to return there to get some of the context:

We have a dictator, not a president.

Spend some time in North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea (do I really need to list more?) and then I'd love to watch you say this.

Sure you may disagree with the President, but ridiculous comments like this throw off your entire arguments.

that is a good point, but just because there are dictators who are worse does not mean we should turn a blind eye when our president bypasses Congress

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is not a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

[Night Strike]

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is not a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

So the only way to be a dictator is to kill those who disagree with you?

[Woodruff]

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is not a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

So the only way to be a dictator is to kill those who disagree with you?

What? Not necessarily, but you'll have to ask with more context, because I really don't understand how you jumped to that point from my questions above (which you could also answer, if you'd care to, since you seem to agree with Phatscotty).

What is it specifically that makes you feel that Obama has become a dictator? Do you believe it will be impossible to oust him from the Presidency when his time is up?

[Night Strike]

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is not a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

So the only way to be a dictator is to kill those who disagree with you?

What? Not necessarily, but you'll have to ask with more context, because I really don't understand how you jumped to that point from my questions above (which you could also answer, if you'd care to, since you seem to agree with Phatscotty).

What is it specifically that makes you feel that Obama has become a dictator? Do you believe it will be impossible to oust him from the Presidency when his time is up?

Bones' justification for Obama not being a dictator was to list governments that routinely persecute and kill their citizens. You agreed with Bones' statement. In the US, if a president does not follow the Constitution when passing or enforcing laws, then he is acting dictatorially. Obama made a clear statement last year that he could not unilaterally enact the DREAM Act because the Constitution says that only Congress can make laws. Last week, he decided to unilaterally enact it anyway. If the president can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he will follow, how is that NOT being a dictator? Dictators make their own laws instead of following the rule of law. This president is making up his own laws and enforcement.

[john9blue]

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

if such a person were to post in this forum, you'd doubt them the same way that you doubt me

[Phatscotty]

I could understand him. I think some of the troubles rest with not wanting to understand.

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

So were you going to answer the question, call me a troll, or is it disappear-time already?

Fine, what is the question

From back on page 2 of this thread (so you may need to return there to get some of the context:

We have a dictator, not a president.

Spend some time in North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea (do I really need to list more?) and then I'd love to watch you say this.

Sure you may disagree with the President, but ridiculous comments like this throw off your entire arguments.

that is a good point, but just because there are dictators who are worse does not mean we should turn a blind eye when our president bypasses Congress

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

You are the most fun person to talk to in the world. Very easy going, very charming.

I didn't say anyone turned a blind eye. I said we (that includes me, does it not?) should not turn a blind eye. If I have to explain things like this to you, then you aren't going to be very fun to talk to, and perhaps it is not even possible.

[Woodruff]

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is not a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

So the only way to be a dictator is to kill those who disagree with you?

What? Not necessarily, but you'll have to ask with more context, because I really don't understand how you jumped to that point from my questions above (which you could also answer, if you'd care to, since you seem to agree with Phatscotty).

What is it specifically that makes you feel that Obama has become a dictator? Do you believe it will be impossible to oust him from the Presidency when his time is up?

Bones' justification for Obama not being a dictator was to list governments that routinely persecute and kill their citizens. You agreed with Bones' statement. In the US, if a president does not follow the Constitution when passing or enforcing laws, then he is acting dictatorially.

The fact that Obama can be removed from office via the vote means that he is not acting dictatorially.

If the president can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he will follow, how is that NOT being a dictator? Dictators make their own laws instead of following the rule of law. This president is making up his own laws and enforcement.

Is this why you made such an outcry about Bush doing it? Because I remember you not doing that.

[Woodruff]

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

if such a person were to post in this forum, you'd doubt them the same way that you doubt me

I doubt anyone who claims one thing and does another. It comes naturally to me, as it should to anyone.

[Woodruff]

I could understand him. I think some of the troubles rest with not wanting to understand.

Well you certainly would be the expert on that. And yet, he couldn't be further from actually gaining the reality of the statements made. Then again, john9blue is just a misunderstood independent who sees both sides of every position!

So were you going to answer the question, call me a troll, or is it disappear-time already?

Fine, what is the question

From back on page 2 of this thread (so you may need to return there to get some of the context:

We have a dictator, not a president.

Spend some time in North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea (do I really need to list more?) and then I'd love to watch you say this.

Sure you may disagree with the President, but ridiculous comments like this throw off your entire arguments.

that is a good point, but just because there are dictators who are worse does not mean we should turn a blind eye when our president bypasses Congress

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

You are the most fun person to talk to in the world. Very easy going, very charming.

I didn't say anyone turned a blind eye. I said we (that includes me, does it not?) should not turn a blind eye. If I have to explain things like this to you, then you aren't going to be very fun to talk to, and perhaps it is not even possible.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd answer it either.

[PLAYER57832]

Which of us is turning a blind eye to it, Phatscotty? Is it Bones, who rightly points out that Obama is not a dictator? Is it me? Is it thegreekdog? Who here is turning a blind eye to it?

So the only way to be a dictator is to kill those who disagree with you?

What? Not necessarily, but you'll have to ask with more context, because I really don't understand how you jumped to that point from my questions above (which you could also answer, if you'd care to, since you seem to agree with Phatscotty).

What is it specifically that makes you feel that Obama has become a dictator? Do you believe it will be impossible to oust him from the Presidency when his time is up?

Bones' justification for Obama not being a dictator was to list governments that routinely persecute and kill their citizens. You agreed with Bones' statement. In the US, if a president does not follow the Constitution when passing or enforcing laws, then he is acting dictatorially. Obama made a clear statement last year that he could not unilaterally enact the DREAM Act because the Constitution says that only Congress can make laws. Last week, he decided to unilaterally enact it anyway. If the president can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he will follow, how is that NOT being a dictator? Dictators make their own laws instead of following the rule of law. This president is making up his own laws and enforcement.

Except, the fact that we even have a Congress, have a Supreme court and , even though there have been some inroads (which both I, Woodruff, greekdog have all criticized), still basically have freee speech .. PARTICULARLY when it comes to the ability to criticize our president, as evidenced by most political posts by both you, Phattscotty and numerous others .. all of these show exactly why we do NOT have a dictator.

In fact, if you want to point to a "dictator", it would be the Supreme Court. Their rule is law. By the constitution, they have the ability to fundamentally change anything that either Congress or the President say.. and they have very much done so with the Citizen's United ruling. Should they rule that companies and individuals do not have to even disclose when they donate ot PACs, then we WILL see a fundamental change. But it won't be a change to support Obama. Nor will it be anything more free or open than Obama.

If the president can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he will follow, how is that NOT being a dictator? Dictators make their own laws instead of following the rule of law. This president is making up his own laws and enforcement.

Its how almost every president has acted throughout our history, most particularly both Bushs, Reagan. (Funny how you don't include them in your diatribe) Its how we have wound up in several wars, how illegal immigration is ignored when its convenient to Big Business, and trotted out as an issue when too many people start to complain. ... etc.

And... whether it is legal or illegal under the constitution is for the Supreme Court to decide. See, that IS EXACTLY how the constitution set out our government.

[Night Strike]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling? Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues? Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)? People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.