24
   

Congratulations, House Republicans!

 
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2014 10:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
How about a source for that synopsis?

Quote:
No person
I question that language.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 07:48 am
@Baldimo,
Seriously. You don't know this to be true. Really?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

Barack Obama (2009-Present)
EOs 13489 - 13679 | Subject Index

The Disposition Tables list the status of Executive Orders from:

January 8, 1937 - October 10, 2014

Disposition Tables contain information about Executive Orders beginning with those signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and are arranged according to Presidential administration and year of signature. The tables are compiled and maintained by the Office of the Federal Register editors.

The Disposition Tables include the following information:

Executive order number;
Date of signing by the President
Federal Register volume, page number, and issue date
Title
Amendments (if any)
Current status (where applicable)

Learn More About Executive Orders And About These Tables

George W. Bush (2001-2009)
EOs 13198-13488 | Subject Index

William J. Clinton (1993-2001)
EOs 12834-13197 | Subject Index

George Bush (1989-1993)
EOs 12668-12833

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
EOs 12287-12667

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
EOs 11967-12286

Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)
EOs 11798-11966

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
EOs 11452-11797

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
EOs 11128-11451

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
EOs 10914-11127

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
EOs 10432-10913

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
EOs 9538-10431

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
EOs 6071-9537

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
EOs 5075-6070


As dumb as you seem be about GOP use of EO's - get an adult to help you to notice the GOP used EO's SIGNIFICANTLY more than Democrats.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 07:50 am
@coldjoint,
Quote:

Could you teach me the backstroke?


Would it be more important to teach you to come in out of the rain or to tie your shoes?

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 08:00 am
@Baldimo,
You're wrong again.

2 GOP presidents acted unilaterally on immigration
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Nov. 17, 2014 3:35 PM EST


FILE - In this Oct. 19, 1983 file photo, President Ronald Reagan speaks during a news conference at... Read more

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.

Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of a sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul and at a time when "amnesty" was not a dirty word. Their actions were less controversial because there was a consensus in Washington that the 1986 law needed a few fixes and Congress was poised to act on them. Obama is acting as the country — and Washington — are bitterly divided over a broken immigration system and what to do about 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

Obama wants to extend protection from deportation to millions of immigrant parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and expand his 2-year-old program that shields immigrants brought illegally to this country as children.

A tea party-influenced GOP is poised to erupt, if and when Obama follows through on his promise.

"The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me," said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an outspoken opponent of relaxing U.S. immigration law. "It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of the American people."

Some Republicans have even raised the possibility of impeachment.

Here's a timeline of then and now:

—1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy. Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.

—2012. In July, the Obama administration announces a new policy curbing deportations for certain immigrants brought illegally to the country as kids. The policy, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), applies to people younger than 30 who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and meet other criteria such as graduating high school. It has now granted two-year deportation reprieves and work permits to nearly 600,000 people.

—2013-2014 (Congress). After months of work, the Senate in June 2013 passes, 68-32, a huge immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants who meet strict criteria. The House fails to act. In a televised interview with Telemundo, Obama says expanding the DACA program to cover the parents of children allowed to remain in the country under the program "would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option."

—2014 Frustrated by Congress' inability to act on immigration, Obama announces in June that he'll use executive powers to address other elements of the flawed immigration system. Like Bush, Obama is expected to extend deportation protections to families of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Obama's anticipated action would not award legal status, but it would offer temporary protection from deportation to up to 5 million people, as well as the possibility of obtaining a work permit. He delayed action until after Election Day. On Monday, Democratic leaders sent a letter to Obama saying they strongly support his plans to take executive action on immigration.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 10:50 am
Turns out after all that the whole Republican frenzy about Benghazi was all just another baseless GOP conspiracy theory. As everybody with any sense at all knew all along.

News from theWashington Post:
Quote:
AdChoices GOP-led panel finds no intelligence failure in Benghazi

The Washington Post STR 56 mins ago


An investigation by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee has concluded that the CIA and U.S. military responded appropriately to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, dismissing allegations that the Obama administration blocked rescue attempts during the assault or sought to mislead the public afterward.

After a two-year probe that involved the review of thousands of pages of classified documents, the panel determined that the attack could not be blamed on an intelligence failure, and that CIA security operatives “ably and bravely assisted” State Department officials who were overwhelmed at a nearby but separate diplomatic compound.

The committee also found “no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support,” rejecting claims that have fed persistent conspiracy theories that the U.S. military was prevented from rescuing U.S. personnel from a night-time assault that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 10:58 am
@MontereyJack,
Yeah, but hey, they covered up and blamed the video....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 11:10 am
@MontereyJack,
Heck, isn't it any wonder the public continues to listen to those "make a mountain out of nothing GOP's." What haven't they shouted and cried about that wasn't true? About 100% of the time!

And guess who won the last election?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 12:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
By ANDREW TAYLOR


The sheriff of Mayberry? Did Barney help him write it?
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:37 pm
@coldjoint,
Had to tell you and baldino first. So you admit: there is a process to deport US citizens and to extradite US citizens. Finally. You admit you got something ******* wrong.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:40 pm
@coldjoint,
You sexist swine. I have no intention of ever voting for HRC but that was over the line. You've just got to be, "between relationships".

Be honest: how many restraining orders have you had against you from your ex's????
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:43 pm
@ehBeth,
I like to record I would very much like to thumbs this up more than once.

And not in a creepy way.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:48 pm
@coldjoint,
You're such a maroon. Look it up first: search 'bugs bunny maroon', theeeeeeen write your little "obama sucks" retort.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 02:55 pm
@revelette2,
The current GOP threatened Obama by using his executive powers on immigration reform that past presidents have used.

When will the American people quit voting in these children into our government?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 05:47 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
http://www.alien-earth.org/images/smileys/blabla.jpg
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 08:23 pm
@coldjoint,
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608022100799259018&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

as opposed to you!
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2014 09:36 am
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/GOP_FMLA-024.png
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2014 09:56 am
Bobsal appears to be compensating for some anxiety about increasingly obvious political trends acting across the country. That he is also doing so in an unusually crude and juvenile way may merely reflect the limits of his abilities or perhaps some serious unease on his part.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2014 09:58 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Bobsal appears to be compensating for some anxiety about increasingly obvious political trends acting across the country.


What are those "increasingly obvious political trends" you see across our country?

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2014 10:00 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Bobsal appears to be compensating for some anxiety about increasingly obvious
political trends acting across the country.


What are those "increasingly obvious political trends" you see across our country?
Maybe the elections of earlier this month ?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2014 10:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Bobsal appears to be compensating for some anxiety about increasingly obvious
political trends acting across the country.


What are those "increasingly obvious political trends" you see across our country?
Maybe the elections of earlier this month ?


One election?????

That is an "increasingly obvious political trend?"

C'mon, David.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:28:44