Boehner's History Of Inaction On Border Control
Speaker of the House John Boehner seems to be in need of a refresher course in how legislation is supposed to happen in the American system of government. Over the course of the past year, Boehner has gone from confidently touting his and his fellow House Republicans' upcoming leadership on the issue of immigration (and border security, in specific), to now doing nothing more than groveling for President Obama to solve the problem using his executive authority -- which is an ironic enough stance for a Republican to take, these days. The House is obviously incapable of action, Boehner is now all but admitting. That's a pretty stunning turnaround, politically.
Boehner was put on the spot last June, when the Senate forged a bipartisan compromise on an immigration reform bill. The bill passed with a whopping 68 votes in the Senate, largely due to last-minute "beef up the border" provisions demanded by Republicans. The Democrats agreed to the changes, which allowed for such wide bipartisan support. Once the Senate had acted, all eyes turned to the House.
Boehner had already (one month before the Senate voted) staked out the position of the House Republican leadership, stating in a joint press release (with Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte) what the Republican priorities and plan of action would be:
While we applaud the progress made by our Senate colleagues, there are numerous ways in which the House will approach the issue differently. The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes. Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own legislation. Enacting policy as consequential and complex as immigration reform demands that both chambers of Congress engage in a robust debate and amendment process. Our nation's immigration processes, border security, and enforcement mechanisms remain dysfunctional. The House goal is enactment of legislation that actually solves these problems and restores faith in our immigration system, and we are committed to continuing the work we've begun toward that goal in the weeks and months ahead.
Boehner and the other Republican House leaders reaffirmed this in a statement released a few weeks after the Senate vote, on the same day they held a caucus meeting on the immigration reform issue:
Today House Republicans affirmed that rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken system. The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don't trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they're alarmed by the president's ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem. The president has also demonstrated he is willing to unilaterally delay or ignore significant portions of laws he himself has signed, raising concerns among Americans that this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate.
Boehner couldn't have been clearer. Big was bad. Small, targeted bills were the way to go. And it was no mystery which of these smaller bills would go first. The day before the above statement was released, Boehner was quoted in The Hill saying:
The House is going to do its own job on developing an immigration bill. But it's real clear, from everything that I've seen and read over the last couple of weeks, that the American people expect that we'll have strong border security in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system.
This all made perfect sense, when considering the overall Republican stance on immigration reform. The Senate bill was "comprehensive," meaning it addressed as much of the problem as politically possible. This included a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 11 million already living in America. House Republicans were never going to vote for this -- it would have been a tough sell to even get them to have supported their significantly watered-down version (a "path to legal status" -- or, in other words, an eventual green card but never being able to vote). But there were certain aspects of the immigration problem that Republicans (it was felt, at the time) could agree upon. The biggest and easiest of these was border security -- which is why it was first on Boehner's list.
The Senate bill had strongly increased funding for border security, including provisions to double the number of Border Patrol agents, as well as build 700 more miles of border fence. This was all due to the Republican senators' last-minute push. But what the Republicans in the House wanted to do was to pass all the "tough on border security" measures as a single bill, without the distraction of all the things they really didn't want to even cast votes on.
If this had happened, it would have set up a more-balanced political argument. Democrats could continue to insist on passing comprehensive reform or nothing, while the House Republicans could insist that the border be made secure before they'd even vote on anything else. Any possibility of actually passing a bill through both houses would have been slim, but it could have remained an issue for both sides to score legitimate political points on the campaign trail this year.
That didn't happen. A few bills (including a border-control bill) did make it out of one House committee on party-line votes, but so far not a single one of them has made it to the House floor. Not one. Not even the one they promised would be first in line: border control.
So not only will Boehner not allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate's bipartisan bill, he cannot even allow a vote on an "enforcement-only" border-securing Republican bill. He has had all the time in the world -- it's now been over a year since the Senate voted. In all that time, Boehner has been silent on the issue. The Republican response to the State Of The Union speech in January attempted to claim Republicans had been working on things:
We're working on a step-by-step solution to immigration reform by first securing our borders and making sure America will always attract the best, brightest, and hardest working from around the world.
But no vote on any of this ever happened. House Republicans have shown they are absolutely incapable of taking even the first step towards their own "step-by step solution." They can't even agree on how strongly they'd beef up the border. John Boehner can't even get a majority together from his own caucus for a bill which is composed solely of Republican ideas, with no Democratic input whatsoever.
Of course, it doesn't help Boehner when members of his own caucus make offensive comments to the media, as Steve King did almost a year ago. Boehner, while condemning King's "calves the size of cantaloupes" remarks, stated: "I'm going to continue to work with members who want to get to a solution, as opposed to those who want to do nothing." A year later, however, it's looking like those who wanted to do nothing had the upper hand all along.
A few weeks ago, Boehner tried to place all the blame for his own inaction and his own inability to lead the Republican House caucus -- even to vote only on border control -- on President Obama. What was laughable about this was his plea that Obama solve the problem by ignoring Congress and taking executive action. Boehner is so upset that Obama is doing other things on his own that he's threatening to sue the president, while at the same time he is writing to Obama:
In that vein, your administration should immediately deploy the National Guard to our southern border. The National Guard is uniquely qualified to respond to such humanitarian crises. They are able to help deal with both the needs of these children and families as well as relieve the border patrol [sic] to focus on their primary duty of securing our border.
A quick review of how we got to this point is in order. Obama worked with the Senate (both Democrats and Republicans) to craft a bipartisan immigration reform bill. The bill passed with 68 votes, including 14 Republicans. This bill would have added 700 miles of fence to the border and doubled the Border Patrol. If it had passed the House and been signed into law, the surge of money towards border security would already be underway right now. But Boehner blocked it, in favor of his own "step-by-step" approach. The first step of this approach was supposed to be a border control bill (one of which has actually made it out of one committee). Boehner has yet to even hold a floor vote, likely knowing it doesn't have enough Republican votes to pass. Republicans can't even agree on the one thing they're supposed to all be for: border security.
Now, rather than seeing Border Patrol agents surge to the border, Boehner is reduced to calling on President Obama to deploy the National Guard (who are not even legally able to arrest any illegal immigrants they see on the border, it bears mentioning). It's pretty clear where the problem is in Washington on immigration reform. After a whole year, Republicans have absolutely nothing to show for the House's efforts to get even a bill passed that they all were supposed to agree upon. If Boehner had been able to pass a border bill by now, then he'd be able to sing a different tune: "House Republicans have acted to secure the borders -- the Senate and Obama refuse to act." But he doesn't even have that political fig leaf available. Instead, he's reduced to begging Obama to fix the problem with executive action. No wonder he's so frustrated.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The reason why Boehner hasn't passed the Senate's Immigration legislation is simple.
It IS good legislation that addresses security before amnesty...
The reason why Boehner won't pass it is because Obama simply cannot be trusted to faithfully execute the legislation as it is written..
It's that simple..
Given Obama's history it is probable, to the point of certainty, that Obama simply will enact the amnesty portions of the legislation and ignore the security portions..
Given this all but certainty, Boehner and the Republicans would be totally stoopid to pass the Senate's Immigration legislation right now..
Once the GOP increases their control on the House and takes the Senate, THEN the GOP will have the clout to FORCE Obama to adhere to ALL parts of the Senate's Immigration legislation. Not just the parts Obama and the Democrats want to adhere to..
If ya'all can find a fault in my logic....
"Well, I'm all ears.."
-Ross Perot
:D
Michale
Michale -
So why didn't Boehner do what he promised he was going to do, and pass his OWN legislation, step by step?
He knows the Senate's not going to pass it as-is, but it would have been useful to him as a political talking point. Yet he couldn't even manage to do that.
Everyone knew he wasn't going to bring the Senate bill to the floor, but that still doesn't explain why he couldn't get his own House in order (so to speak).
-CW
Michale -
"The reason why Boehner won't pass it is because Obama simply cannot be trusted to faithfully execute the legislation as it is written..
It's that simple..
Given Obama's history it is probable, to the point of certainty, that Obama simply will enact the amnesty portions of the legislation and ignore the security portions.."
The Democrats addressed this "concern" of the GOP by offering to have the bill not go into effect until after 2016, and they still refused.
CW,
So why didn't Boehner do what he promised he was going to do, and pass his OWN legislation, step by step?
My guess is because he knew it wouldn't pass the Senate..
Everyone knew he wasn't going to bring the Senate bill to the floor, but that still doesn't explain why he couldn't get his own House in order (so to speak).
I think you have adequatly explained that point..
The GOP is fractured...
Irregardless of that, the reasons why Boehner won't pass the Senate Immigration legislation are clear, concise and quite logical, given the total trust deficit on the part of Obama and the Democrats...
PF,
The Democrats addressed this "concern" of the GOP by offering to have the bill not go into effect until after 2016, and they still refused.
Even if what you say is true, so?? Obama and the Democrats changed MANY "effective dates" when it came to TrainWreckCare...
"I know that this legislation wasn't supposed to go into effect until 2016, but we have the urgent need of NOW, so I am issuing an executive order that will put this legislation into effect right now."
-Future Barack Obama
What would have stopped Obama from changing the effective date of the Immigration Legislation??
You see, that's the problem when constantly lying and making end runs around legislation..
You lose the trust and it's almost impossible to get it back..
Obama and the Democrats simply cannot be trusted..
That's the bed they made and this is exactly what I predicted would happen..
Nothing can get done because no one can believe what Democrats and Obama says...
Michale
Nothing can get done because no one can believe what Democrats and Obama says...
It's actually a pretty kewl scam in a disgusting and perverse way when ya think about it..
Democrats and Republicans dicker about Acme Legislation.
Democrats offer compromise after compromise after compromise, knowing full well that, if the GOP accepts the compromise and the legislation becomes law, Obama will simply ignore the compromise and enact only the parts of the legislation that Democrats want...
If the GOP doesn't accept the compromise because they KNOW Obama won't adhere to it, then the Democrats can beat the GOP over the head with it..
Like I said, it's a pretty kewl (disgusting/perverse) scam..
But the American people are on to Democrats and Obama..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014
Dems are going to be pining for the wonderful election results of 2010... :D
Michale
Ya'all raise a lot of periphery issues..
But it all boils down to one thing..
Can the GOP trust Obama and the Democrats to enact the legislation as it is written?
THAT is the single question that addresses ALL of ya'alls talking points..
Now, if you can come up with LOGICAL and RATIONAL reasons why the GOP *can* trust Obama and the Democrats to enact the legislation as it is written.......
I am willing to listen...
But if you can't.... Then you have your answer as to why the GOP is not helping the Democrats to further the Democrat Party agenda to the detriment of the country...
Michale
To lay it out succinctly...
Obama is Lucy...
Democrats are the football...
And Boehner is Charlie Brown....
Can't make it any clearer than that...
Michale
Republicans claiming they don't trust Obama because he did his job and successfully implemented a law Republicans wanted to fail is total nonsense. The only ones who've proven that they cannot be trusted are Republicans. They're all about blaming Obama for their own failures.
Obama has always tried to work with Republicans, often to the consternation of Progressives, Republicans simply refuse to work with him. They can't even work with each other! All they're good for is making lame excuses.
Hey Chris!
It's really obvious that this "We can't trust BHO" excuse is extraordinarily lame. They could make the legislation go into effect in 2017 when Rant Paul is president.
Riiiggghhhttt...
It's ALL the Republicans fault..
The Messiah and his disciples are as pure as the driven snow...
{{sssiiiggggghhhhhhh}}
Republicans claiming they don't trust Obama because he did his job and successfully implemented a law Republicans wanted to fail is total nonsense.
That's the point. Obama DIDN'T "implement" the law... He suspended parts of the law that would hurt Democrats...
THAT is the whole point...
Duuuhhhhhhh.......
Obama has always tried to work with Republicans,
If you change "always" to "never", you would be right...
They can't even work with each other!
Sounds like Democrats during the Bush years. Of course, you never said anything against it then...
It's called "hypocrisy"...
All they're good for is making lame excuses.
Yea, and Democrats have done a BANG UP job so far, eh??
That's why Obama's approval ratings are in the toilet and Democrats are going to lose the Senate..
Right?? :D
Michale
I mean, is THAT really the prevailing opinion around here??
That it's the REPUBLICANS that are completely and solely to blame for the problems this country faces and that Obama and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow, totally and completely devoid of ANY responsibility???
Seriously!???
"Did IQs drop suddenly while I was away???"
-Ripley, ALIENS
Michale
Michale -
That's nonsense. Boehner has passed dozens (hundreds?) of bills he knows won't make it through the Senate. So why is this one any different?
Pastafarian Dan's right, they offered to make it not go into effect until the next presidential term. I guess Republicans aren't feeling all that lucky about 2016, are they?
Heh.
-CW
John From Censornati -
I would say "welcome to the site" but I already recognize your name... maybe from here, maybe from HuffPost? Can't remember, but I'm positive I've seen comments from you somewhere before!
Sorry for the delay in posting your comments. They should appear instantly from now on.
:-)
-CW
Pastafarian Dan's right, they offered to make it not go into effect until the next presidential term. I guess Republicans aren't feeling all that lucky about 2016, are they?
So they offered...
BFD...
An offer from Obama and the Democrats is worth as much as a $3 bill...
Republicans are still waiting for the tort reform that was "offered" when Obama lied about CrapCare...
An offer, ANY offer, MUST be backed up with trust and integrity.
Obama and the Democrats have PROVEN beyond ANY doubt time and time again that they don't even know the definition of either..
Michale
John,
It's really obvious that this "We can't trust BHO" excuse is extraordinarily lame.
Really??
Please explain why.. Please provide facts to support your conclusion..
They could make the legislation go into effect in 2017 when Rant Paul is president.
And "they" could simply ignore what they make to further their own agenda..
As "they" have done in the past time and time again..
Ya see, that's the problem with ya'alls position and conclusions..
They are completely devoid of facts and totally opposite of the reality of the here and now..
Weigantia is a "REALITY based" forum...
So, do you have ANY facts to support what you claim??
By the by....
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Don't worry, if ya stick around, you get used to it.. :D
Michale
I realize that getting ya'all on the record to make some bad calls is like pulling teeth, but here goes...
Lemme ask ya'all something..
Postulate a scenario where, in September of 2014, Obama signs an executive order that gives all illegal aliens in the country who are of voting age, the right to vote...
Two questions.
1. Do you think it could happen??
2. What would ya'alls reaction be??
Michale
And now the crimes and the death is starting to pile up...
And with dozens and dozens of communities across the country defying the US Government to relocate these illegals???
Who do you think Joe and Jane SixPack are going to blame???
I'll give you a hint..
It AIN'T going to be the Republicans...
Michale
Thanks Chris. You remember my name from another site. I am no longer welcome there for lack of a civility-inducing FaceBook account. Anyway, I always liked reading your column and I avoid that site these days, so I came over here. I didn't expect that you would have your very own obsessive-compulsive Republican word salad chatbot.
. I am no longer welcome there for lack of a civility-inducing FaceBook account.
Welcome to my world.. :D
See!? We already have something in common!! :D
I didn't expect that you would have your very own obsessive-compulsive Republican word salad chatbot.
Actually, I am a registered NPA (No Political Affiliation) and hate Republicans politicians ALMOST as much as I hate Democrat politicians..
Just a little bit of friendly advice.. If yer gonna debut here with nothing but name-calling and ad-hominem attacks, you won't do very well..
Most people here in Weigantia (myself especially) respond to FACTS and mutual respect...
Hopefully, you have the facts.. The mutual respect might take a bit longer to grow into for ya.. :D
As I said, just a lil bit o friendly advice...
Michale
John,
I didn't expect that you would have your very own obsessive-compulsive Republican word salad chatbot.
He's a rather cheerful fellow, once you get to know him.
:-)
John,
I am no longer welcome there ...
I'm afraid that site has become much worse since we were forced to have a Facebook account.
Now, it has replaced its comments sections with a Facebook "conversation" platform and, consequently, has effectively "moved the conversation" to oblivion, at least for those of us whose comments are no longer visible under the HP articles even though we seem to be doing everything right.
I'm missing the place -or, at least, one particular corner of it - less and less with each passing day. I never wanted a Facebook account to begin with but now, having signed up for one, and STILL not being able to comment gives whole new meaning to adding insult to injury. :(
In other words, welcome to the site - hope you stick around as a voice of reason is always a welcome one.
@ EM
I never believed them about the civility charade. It was clear to me that it was a data mining project from the git-go. I'm not even sure what AOL is, but I knew it was The End when the shape-shifter sold her empire to them. They had a great comment system back in their early days. I especially liked the hocus pocus section.
Michale [15] -
OK, Mister Fact-based, please provide me with one example of when the Obama administration has enacted a law earlier than what the law says. Just one.
Any facts to support your claim? Any??
[16] -
1. No.
2. Ain't never going to happen. Too much Fox News recently, or what? I mean, even for you, this is pretty far-fetched. Even under the Senate plan, it would take THIRTEEN YEARS before the first immigrant covered ever gained the right to vote. That is more than three presidential terms.
JFC [18] -
[Hope you don't mind if I call you "JFC," as John From Censornati is a lot to type out...]
Aha! Thought you sounded familiar!
Here's my secret (shhh!) -- I don't have a Facebook account either, so I can no longer answer comments over at that "other site." I have complained to the editors, but to no avail. I'm just glad they still allow me to post, non-Facebook person that I am. Sheesh.
General comment to all: ChrisWeigant.com welcomes with open arms ALL refugees from that "other site" who refuse to sign up for Facebook just to comment!
LizM [20] -
Don't know if I'd go as far as "cheerful" but he certainly is a lot of fun to poke with a (verbal) stick every so often, ain't he?
Heh.
Also, JFC, have to say I loved that "chatbot" swipe. Hadn't heard that one before!
:-)
One last comment -- I find it ironic in the extreme when that other site runs headlines about how Facebook is evil for mining everyone's data (which they still continue to do) while simultaneously restricting their comments to Facebook-only types. The irony's so thick you can slice it up and sell it to the tourists...
-CW
CW,
OK, Mister Fact-based, please provide me with one example of when the Obama administration has enacted a law earlier than what the law says. Just one.
I can name a dozen times when the Obama administration has CHANGED the effective date of a law...
Which is what I am talking about..
Any facts to support your claim? Any??
Plenty.. Do you want the list?? :D You'll have to suspend the one link per comment rule for a bit... :D
1. No.
2. Ain't never going to happen. Too much Fox News recently, or what? I mean, even for you, this is pretty far-fetched. Even under the Senate plan, it would take THIRTEEN YEARS before the first immigrant covered ever gained the right to vote. That is more than three presidential terms.
I am constrained to point out that Obama himself said he can't change the immigration laws and then less then a year later, he did...
So, I don't put ANYTHING past this POTUS..
So, can I infer from your comment that you would NOT support such an action from Obama, that you would DENOUNCE such an action from Obama and that you would support impeachment if Obama attempted such an action?? :D
The irony's so thick you can slice it up and sell it to the tourists...
Out har in my neck o the woods, they call that HYPOCRISY... :D
Michale
Ya see, that's the problem with ya'alls position and conclusions..
They are completely devoid of facts and totally opposite of the reality of the here and now..
Weigantia is a "REALITY based" forum...
So, do you have ANY facts to support what you claim??
I'll assume from your silence (other than the name-calling) that you have no facts to support your conclusions...
{{ssssiiigggghhhhhh}} Another hopeful dashed.. :(
Michale
OK, Mister Fact-based
I like that..
So much more... er... FACTUAL than "chatbot"... :D
Michale
JFC works for me. In fact, some people at that other site thought that JFC was the point and that I worked backwards from there. Something about jesus. That is not the case though. I just twisted the name of the TV show a little bit to protest The One Who Watches Words. OTOH, John From Cincinnati's name was John Monad.
OK, I think it's time to drop the F-bomb...
If any of ya'all have any F....F.... FACTS.... that indicate Obama can be trusted, then.... well, we'll turn to the tried and true wisdom of Mr Ross Perot...
"I'm all ears..."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
:D
Michale
"I loved that "chatbot" swipe"
It wasn't intended as an insult. Since we only deal in facts here, I would call it an evaluation. I don't believe that "he" is a real person. "His" response hit all the right notes - just what a chatbot would say. I love that "he" thinks "he" is the hall monitor here.
Since we only deal in facts here, I would call it an evaluation. I don't believe that "he" is a real person.
You DO realize that your first statement is TOTALLY negated by your second statement.. :D
I love that "he" thinks "he" is the hall monitor here.
Let's just say I have a vested interest (as most every other Weigantian has) in keeping Weigantia as free as possible from childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..
If you are looking for a HuffPoop-type place where people are childish and immature, then you have definitely come to the wrong place....
Michale
I don't believe that "he" is a real person.
Bravo...
First rule of Gestapo-ish tactics.. De-humanize your opponent.. Make him/her an "it" in your mind..
Are you sure you're a liberal/progressive?? :D
Michale
It wasn't intended as an insult.
Perhaps not...
your very own obsessive-compulsive Republican
But THAT sure as frak was! :D
Michale
John,
I love that "he" thinks "he" is the hall monitor here.
Well, he actually is!
I was also a squad leader in BMTS... :D
Prepared me for my role in Weigantia....
hehehehehehehehe
Michale
well, between the Malasyia shoot-down and Israel FINALLY paving over Gaza, the US southern border has been taken down a peg on the news cycle..
Obama is probably on his knees thanking the media gods...
Michale
Michale [24] -
Please post your list (I'll personally approve it for moderation), but please limit it to exactly what I asked for: any case where Obama moved the schedule for a new law UP, and not BACK. /In other words, what you were trying to accuse him of doing.
As for Obama legalizing everyone with the stroke of a pen, it just ain't gonna happen. I'll wear an "I love/miss George W. Bush" T-shirt for a whole day if it every does, how's that? You can hold me to that promise.
JFC [27] -
The only one I've ever heard is "WWJD" which I notice flies right out the window when there are child refugees on our border...
Anyway, thanks, it's a lot easier to type.
As for Michale, well... he's an acquried taste, admittedly. I tolerate him for two big reasons: (1) he pays his freight -- he's a big contributor to the site, and he usually stays within the bounds of respectful conversation here (kind of, at least), and (2) he saves me HOURS of research, because I don't have to troll right-wing sites with him around: I just have to consider what he's saying, and counter his arguments. I haven't even glanced at Fox News or Drudge for years. That is indeed a valuable service, to me.
:-)
But he does take some getting use to. See if you can engage him on the subject of science-fiction. That's usually where the politics fall away and we can all quote funny movies....
See? Michale [35]... that saved me from actually listening to Rush Limbaugh suggesting that the Malaysian Arlines disaster was some sort of conspiracy by Obama (maybe he shot the plane down himself!!!>/em>), to distract from the border.
In other words: priceless!
:-)
-CW
Please post your list (I'll personally approve it for moderation), but please limit it to exactly what I asked for: any case where Obama moved the schedule for a new law UP, and not BACK. /In other words, what you were trying to accuse him of doing.
I accused him of changing effective dates..
And no one can deny that he has done exactly that.
Changing moving it up is not any different than moving it back...
As for Obama legalizing everyone with the stroke of a pen, it just ain't gonna happen. I'll wear an "I love/miss George W. Bush" T-shirt for a whole day if it every does, how's that? You can hold me to that promise.
That's not exactly what I asked..
I asked if Obama could give illegals the right to vote??
And... Would you support him if he did... :D
of conspiracy by Obama (maybe he shot the plane down himself!!!>/em>), to distract from the border.
In other words: priceless!
HA!!! :D
Michale
of conspiracy by Obama (maybe he shot the plane down himself!!!>/em>), to distract from the border.
Actually, the one I like best is that Obama ordered the CIA to assassinate Putin and the CIA downed the wrong plane..
Love it!!! :D
The only one I've ever heard is "WWJD" which I notice flies right out the window when there are child refugees on our border...
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/uFGvPnvhXUU/hqdefault.jpg
These are the majority of "children" at the border...
Michale
and he usually stays within the bounds of respectful conversation here (kind of, at least)
In my defense, I only go outside those bounds when provoked..
In other words, I treat people EXACTLY as they treat me..
"For those who will be our allies, you will find no more faithful a friend than the United States.
For those who would wish to make war on us and do us harm?
We can be faithful to that as well."
-President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS
:D
Michale
As for Michale, well... he's an acquried taste, admittedly.
:D
What CW is saying is that I am, indeed, a real person..
The sooner you realize that and lose the Goebbels' De-Humaniztion 101 teachings, the better off everyone will be...
Michale
I just have to consider what he's saying, and counter his arguments.
Which is MUCH easier said than done.. :D
Michale
"The only one I've ever heard is "WWJD"
You have to take the zombie god's first and last names and put an F word in between.
"which I notice flies right out the window when there are child refugees on our border"
They don't call it The Big Book of Multiple Choice for nothing!
Our Xenophobe who art in Sky-Heaven, hallowed be Thy multiple names and personalities.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on the Rio Grande as it was in Berlin.
Give us this day our Leviticus cherry-picking and forgive us our totally open border and we will never forgive those little kids who invade against us.
And lead us not into sanity, but deliver us from reason.
For Thine is the self-righteousness and the hypocrisy and the cognitive dissonance forever and ever.
You betcha.
BTW - I had already trolled the RW sites, and on Thursday, I mocked Rash Limpbone's ridiculous conspiracy rant on the thread about the Orangeman's lawsuit. It's a Fact unlike other posts that list 23 dead Amurikkkans in Ukraine.
"I tolerate him for two big reasons"
In no way do I advocate for you to not tolerate "him". I don't like the way that they call names and demonize people *and ban dissenters* at sites like Red State. I'm happy to know that you take the high road.
BTW - I had already trolled the RW sites,
At least you are honest about your intent. I have to give you points for that...
I don't like the way that they call names and demonize people
Yer kidding, right!!??
*and ban dissenters* at sites like Red State.
AND at sites like HuffPoop and Daily KaaKaa AND at Banter Line sites and all the other Left Wing sites...
There really isn't any difference between you and the Republicans you castigate...
THAT's the point you simply refuse to see...
I mocked Rash Limpbone's ridiculous conspiracy rant on the thread about the Orangeman's lawsuit.
As I said, the American people have issued a vote of NO CONFIDENCE against the Blackman in the White House...
The lawsuit is likely to be welcomed by the American people..
Michale
As I said, the American people have issued a vote of NO CONFIDENCE against the Blackman in the White House...
If we're going to be reducing people to the color of their skin as a means of ridicule.....
Well, not sure if I like that or not...
Michale