Obama Prepares To Distribute 34 Million Green Cards To Illegals

[moda0306]

What does it matter who someone voted for?  If they produce good arguments or poke valid holes in yours, address them.  If you can't, if your first instinct is to throw out ad hominems or ask them questions hoping to lead to a mechanism to lob ad hominems, then this is probably an indication of difficulty in critical thinking.

I'm not saying that sometimes we want to escape the bounds of logic and reason to explore someone a bit further, or go on side-tangents... but if this is your main defense mechanism against having to think critically and level reasoned arguments rather than loaded insults towards a politician, then a change in approach is advisable.

Let's keep the debate more about the issues and less about the people debating.

[Reub]

Why is it so difficult to answer such a simple question?

[Pointedstick]

Why is it so difficult to answer such a simple question?

Because it is unrelated to the subject at hand and the expected response is clearly intended to be used as a weapon to discredit the responder.

Knock it off. Don't become the next Kshartle.

[Reub]

You radical leftists sure stick together, don't you?

Knock it off yourself.

[Benko]

"In that case, he should have dismantled the entire government"
I'm no expert in the different kinds of defective argumentation, but perhaps this is called Reductio ad absurdum.  In any case, your reply is so over the top as to be silly.  And you must know this.

PS's reply is pretty funny, and creative.  But back to the point:

Look at O's foreign policy.  Look how we have treated our former allies e.g. Britain, Israel. etc.  Which countries have we supported and not?

Benko,

I was just carrying your logic about Obama's logic to its logical conclusion.    (Does that make sense? haha)

I know your comments were a bit tongue in cheek (they would have to be, oterwise my conclusion seems to be valid of his likely behavior (unless, like Tech, you really think we'd be more stable and safe without government)).

But you had little more than a "kernel of truth" in your statement.  It was just another gross exaggeration of Obama's intentions as president, IMO.  Now we all throw some snark around here, but it seems to me when we approach snark-to-substance ratios approaching that of some of the arguments being made, it's simply counter productive.  IMO... of course.

Moda,

"But you had little more than a "kernel of truth" in your statement"
According to you. 

You know of people who believe that e.g. the US is a greater threat to world peace than e.g. ISIS?  So if one believed that the best thing one could do would be to make the US weaker on the international scene. 

How does Britain feel about us?  Israel?  Turkey?

ISIS is not muslim (cough cough).

"The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring”? erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt.

The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist”? movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability”? in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes”? even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate”? Islamic political movements."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreen ... st-groups/

[Benko]

PS MODA,

"If Obama is truly a Socialist AND hates U.S. power, he would believe that the dismantling of our government would be the ultimate blow to our country's power... and given Benko's assertion about his intentions, he would have moved in that direction, rather than that of more control."

"dismantling of our government would be the ultimate blow to our country's power... "
I don't remember how you describe/think of yourself, but you are aware, that only a BIG GOV"T statist would think like this right?

Do you mean dismantle the defense dept?  Otherwise, this makes no sense. OPen a gov't directory i.e. phone book listing all the gov't agencies.  Pick 30%?  50%?.  now delete those agencies.  odds are very high the country is better off (Obviously there would be a period of adjustment). 

In that case, he should have dismantled the entire government, or something equally destabilizing and unsafe to the U.S.

he is against US dominance and blames the US for the worlds troubles. but he wouldn't dismantle government because he is pro government, just not so much pro "autonomous american constitutional republic" type government.. the underlining plan sometimes seems to be, make american government so big intrusive and mismanaged that we have no choice but to adopt a larger more intrusive, less liberty minded, globally incompetent, world government to fix it all..

[pp4me3]

I think Obama is not only our first black president but also our first anti-American president.

[Reub]

I think Obama is not only our first black president but also our first anti-American president.

Be careful or the leftist censors on here will shut you up.

[pp4me3]

36 posts into this thread it has surely gone off-topic but I would like to see some politician sponsor a law that said anybody who came to this country illegally will NEVER be eligible for citizenship under any circumstances.

If you want to get a visa to come to the U.S.A. they ask if you were convicted of a crime on the application and if you say yes you WILL be denied. When Processing my wife's visa to come to the U.S.A. we had to do considerable legwork to get police records from all the countries where she worked in the past. If we hadn't been able to get them or they showed some blemish she would have been denied the visa.

But come across the border and prove yourself a lawbreaker with no respect for our laws from the very beginning and we will reward you for it?

What a slap in the face to both natural born Americans and to those who came here legally!

[Pointedstick]

36 posts into this thread it has surely gone off-topic but I would like to see some politician sponsor a law that said anybody who came to this country illegally will NEVER be eligible for citizenship under any circumstances.

If you want to get a visa to come to the U.S.A. they ask if you were convicted of a crime on the application and if you say yes you WILL be denied. When Processing my wife's visa to come to the U.S.A. we had to do considerable legwork to get police records from all the countries where she worked in the past. If we hadn't been able to get them or they showed some blemish she would have been denied the visa.

But come across the border and prove yourself a lawbreaker with no respect for our laws from the very beginning and we will reward you for it?

What a slap in the face to both natural born Americans and to those who came here legally!

It boggles my mind as well. I have a co-worker whose wife is from a Central American country, can't remember which, and the hoops they've had to jump through to do everything above board strike me as astonishing. So no wonder people break the law. And then when they do, it's like nobody cares. I simply don't understand it.

seconded .. i have firsthand experience with the legal process of immigration, and the cost and bureaucratic legalese paperwork are mind boggling, you think triplicate is the bureaucratic standard for paperwork, "hell no" try seven-tuplicate with apostille certified translations of any foreign language paperwork.... then there is the cost and the hassle and the countless trips to wait in line at government offices etc etc etc..
but break the law... "welcome in" here is a drivers license, a voters registration, and a "get out of jail free card" "don't get deported card" in case you break some other law...

[Reub]

Why is it so difficult to answer such a simple question?

Because it is unrelated to the subject at hand and the expected response is clearly intended to be used as a weapon to discredit the responder.

Knock it off. Don't become the next Kshartle.

[moda0306]

PS MODA,

"If Obama is truly a Socialist AND hates U.S. power, he would believe that the dismantling of our government would be the ultimate blow to our country's power... and given Benko's assertion about his intentions, he would have moved in that direction, rather than that of more control."

"dismantling of our government would be the ultimate blow to our country's power... "
I don't remember how you describe/think of yourself, but you are aware, that only a BIG GOV"T statist would think like this right?

Do you mean dismantle the defense dept?  Otherwise, this makes no sense. OPen a gov't directory i.e. phone book listing all the gov't agencies.  Pick 30%?  50%?.  now delete those agencies.  odds are very high the country is better off (Obviously there would be a period of adjustment).

And Obama is a big government statist... Is he not?  Therefore to weaken us the most his conclusion might be to reduce government entirely. Or at least the logical conclusion a statist would come to.

"In that case, he should have dismantled the entire government"
I'm no expert in the different kinds of defective argumentation, but perhaps this is called Reductio ad absurdum.  In any case, your reply is so over the top as to be silly.  And you must know this.

PS's reply is pretty funny, and creative.  But back to the point:

Look at O's foreign policy.  Look how we have treated our former allies e.g. Britain, Israel. etc.  Which countries have we supported and not?

Benko,

I was just carrying your logic about Obama's logic to its logical conclusion.    (Does that make sense? haha)

I know your comments were a bit tongue in cheek (they would have to be, oterwise my conclusion seems to be valid of his likely behavior (unless, like Tech, you really think we'd be more stable and safe without government)).

But you had little more than a "kernel of truth" in your statement.  It was just another gross exaggeration of Obama's intentions as president, IMO.  Now we all throw some snark around here, but it seems to me when we approach snark-to-substance ratios approaching that of some of the arguments being made, it's simply counter productive.  IMO... of course.

Moda,

"But you had little more than a "kernel of truth" in your statement"
According to you. 

You know of people who believe that e.g. the US is a greater threat to world peace than e.g. ISIS?  So if one believed that the best thing one could do would be to make the US weaker on the international scene. 

How does Britain feel about us?  Israel?  Turkey?

ISIS is not muslim (cough cough).

"The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring”? erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt.

The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist”? movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability”? in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes”? even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate”? Islamic political movements."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreen ... st-groups/

I don't know of anyone that thinks the US is a greater threat to world peace than ISIS. I'm sure there are some. It would appear you think our president is one of them.

I'm not sure how "Britain" (an entity that can't feel... So I'm assuming you mean the people of Britain on average) feels about us or Turkey or Israel. I don't know how that's relevant.

The semantics of whether the extremists of any religion are members of that religion or not also does not lend evidence as to whether Obama thinks weakening the US is good for the world.

Regarding stability vs moderate politics, these are a balancing act.  It seems our political leaders have historically conveniently bounced back and forth between the two when it's convenient for the adventure that they would like to take us on. I don't find a harm in studying that balance.  Nor do I necessarily prefer one conclusion over the other. And, once again, these lend no real evidence towards Obama having the opinion that weakening the US will make the world a better place.

[Libertarian666]

Why is it so difficult to answer such a simple question?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Libertarian666]

I don't know of anyone that thinks the US is a greater threat to world peace than ISIS.

You do now. Pleased to meet you.

[moda0306]

Hahaha.. I almost made an exception for you, tech. 

[Jan Van]

So what exactly would be the problem if those 34M people became green card holders?

[moda0306]

And Obama is a big government statist... Is he not?  Therefore to weaken us the most his conclusion might be to reduce government entirely. Or at least the logical conclusion a statist would come to.

except that statisim isn't logical, to a statist weakening limited,  autonomous,  functional government is the goal, not weakening big government, if big government fails the "logical" solution to a statist is bigger government, further removed from the peoples will, with more intrusion in to every aspect of the peoples lives and business.

Premise: A statist believes that a strong central government facilitates a safe, stable country.
Premise: A statist believes that a weak or nonexistent central goverment results in an unsafe, unstable country.
Premise (as stated by Benko): Obama thinks that making the U.S. unsafe and unstable will increase the stability and safety of the world.

Therefore: Obama, as commander and chief of the US, will see disbanding the federal government as increasing the safety and stability of the world.

Why doesn't he do that?

My answer: Because the premise that Benko poses, while it has a "grain of truth" to it (that Obama probably sees some U.S. actions as harmful to world peace), is a ridiculous over-statement of reality.

IMO, of course... but I think the logic backs it up.

i think you are hanging out around to many anarchists you have lost sight of your statist illusion that the solution to big government is bigger government, and the scape goat for it's failings are limited government and free markets.... the logic works based on limited statements and over statements but not likely in reality

Premise (as stated by Benko): Obama thinks that making the U.S. unsafe and unstable will increase the stability and safety of the world.

except premise is wrong (or not fully stated) Obama (seems to) think making the US unstable and unsafe will lead to a global government which will be bigger, better than, and contain within it, the bloated US federal government. It wouldn't make sense to reduce stability and safety by eliminating government, if the end goal is doubling down on the size of and upping the number of levels of government..

[moda0306]

Simon,

Well if "growing government" is the goal, one might ask why Obama thinks it's better?  Most socialists believe that it creates more stability and safety.  Obama, too, probably believes this to a certain degree.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Obama can't simultaneously be a socialist (someone who thinks growing government is good for stability and safety), be seeking to grow the U.S. government, AND wanting to weaken the country.  It doesn't make logical sense based on his supposed beliefs about what makes a strong country/economy.


This has nothing to do with anarchy, other than it is the logical extreme of one way of thinking... perhaps Obama would be simply deregulating and lowering taxes to "destroy the country," since socialists believe that those are harmful to a country.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too.  Obama can't be all evil things at once, as much as many would love to believe he is.

it does make sense if you separate the aspects of government you want to weaken from those you want to grow, (not viewing it in all or nothing terms based on dramatic over statements) if you want to weaken autonomy, liberty, economic and military dominance, then you can absolutely weaken those aspects of the USA and grow government, socialize everything you can, and push for globalization of government at the same time

[Benko]

And Obama is a big government statist... Is he not?  Therefore to weaken us the most his conclusion might be to reduce government entirely. Or at least the logical conclusion a statist would come to.

except that statisim isn't logical, to a statist weakening limited,  autonomous,  functional government is the goal, not weakening big government, if big government fails the "logical" solution to a statist is bigger government, further removed from the peoples will, with more intrusion in to every aspect of the peoples lives and business.

Premise: A statist believes that a strong central government facilitates a safe, stable country.
Premise: A statist believes that a weak or nonexistent central goverment results in an unsafe, unstable country.
Premise (as stated by Benko): Obama thinks that making the U.S. unsafe and unstable will increase the stability and safety of the world.

Therefore: Obama, as commander and chief of the US, will see disbanding the federal government as increasing the safety and stability of the world.

Why doesn't he do that?

My answer: Because the premise that Benko poses, while it has a "grain of truth" to it (that Obama probably sees some U.S. actions as harmful to world peace), is a ridiculous over-statement of reality.

IMO, of course... but I think the logic backs it up.

"Premise: A statist believes that a strong central government facilitates a safe, stable country.
Premise: A statist believes that a weak or nonexistent central goverment results in an unsafe, unstable country."

Because the only alternatives are Mussilini and anarchy and nothing in between?

"Premise (as stated by Benko): Obama thinks that making the U.S. unsafe and unstable will increase the stability and safety of the world."

You are taking everything to extremes and putting words in my mouth.  But I would argue again this shows your biases. 

[MWKXJ]

So what exactly would be the problem if those 34M people became green card holders?

A lifeboat is only so big.

[moda0306]

Benko,

My logic works in small degrees as well.  This isn't rigid/extreme, necessarily.  If Obama thinks a stronger central government will create more stability and safety in any given country (not Moussolini-style, but just relative growth like increasing HC for everyone, higher taxes, more regs, etc), then how can he be actively trying to weaken our country while taking those actions?

It doesn't make sense, even on an incremental level.

But I will take people's logic to extremes if there is no limiting principal, and they grossly contradict other statements they are making.  Sorry... you just don't get a pass.  And there is a difference between "putting words in people's mouths," and taking their jumbled logic to its natural conclusion... not to mention juxtaposing that logic against other things they try to say about someone.



What shows biases is a willingness to trying to appear to engage in fair debate, but then when you're backed into a corner (think the GW debate) or it's convenient, you make an outlandish claim. There is a massive difference between "we have to be skeptical of what 97% of scientists believe to be true, because they can be wrong and have been before," and arguing on that point about public policy, and the statement that "global warming is a giant fraud being inflicted on the minds of the public, because these few scietists, politicians and business leaders have pointed out what a complete farce it is."

Those premises don't both exist in the same world.  If you don't want to get called out on bad arguments, sorry but don't make them.  I will continue to test bad logic with no limiting principal by pushing it to uncomfortable extremes (as is prudent when determining what points are worth considering), and I'll definitely call people out if they are using inconsistent premises that can't exist in the same universe, or are at least very unlikely to both be valid points simultaneously.

Otherwise we let all sorts of garbage into debate.  Thing like "Obama wants to weaken this country because he believes it advances world peace," are so overblown and general (not to mention inconsistent with thinking he's a socialist who grows government because he thinks it will make us safer and more stable (a pretty common trait of socialists... they think it will be GOOD for a society)), and to the degree there s a kernel of truth to it, that same kernel of truth is pretty consistent trait amongst people who are thoughtful enough to realize that the U.S. isn't always taking actions that advance world stability and safety, and players are often taking these actions in hopes of increasing stability/safety of the homeland.


Obama can't simultaneously be every kind of evil.  He can't simultaneously be a socialist (trying to bring us into his socialist view, as it will be better for us) AND be trying to destroy the U.S.A.

[Benko]

Premise (as stated by Benko): Obama thinks that making the U.S. unsafe and unstable will increase the stability and safety of the world.

Moda,

As stated by Benko is a lie because I never said that.  It is that simple.  Or produce the post where I said that.

[moda0306]

Your theorem about Barack Obama....

my theorem about Barack Obama to understand him.
1.The world will be more safe if the United States is less safe.
2.The world will be more stable if the United States is less stable.
3.Act against one and two only when polling demands it and only then in a way that does not actually undermine one and two.

...are the assertions laid out in your theorem's point 1 and 2 REALLY so different from this...

Premise (as stated by Benko): Obama thinks that making the U.S. unsafe and unstable will increase the stability and safety of the world.

Sorry that I didn't quote you, verbatim.  I figured I was laying out about with about 99.9% functional accuracy what you were trying to say.


I don't see how I was really  misquoting you... and if I was, it certainly wasn't to the level of a "lie" in doing so... perhaps I simply missed a material aspect of your theorem in point 1 and 2 that isn't very obvious.

[craigr]

So what exactly would be the problem if those 34M people became green card holders?

Because culture matters and it's not all relative.

[pp4me3]

So what exactly would be the problem if those 34M people became green card holders?

I thought I explained in my previous post what I thought would be the problem with it. It's a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens. Do you not think there is anything problematic about that or do you think law-abiding citizens should get slapped in the face like Obama does?