Social Question

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Is anyone else surprised by President Obama's plain and clear language in his statement regarding immigration "reform?"?

Asked by SecondHandStoke (9502points) November 20th, 2014

This common sense conservative was impressed with Obama’s strikingly reasonable and sensible compromise regarding the illegal alien issue.

Please God, Republicans in office, do not fuck this up over semantics. Let this happen.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

44 Answers

Earthbound_Misfit's avatar

I just listened to his speech and it brought tears to my eyes. I wish my Prime Minister was such a leader.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

Obama has lost his final battle. Therefore he is less constrained by the politics of self-preservation, and can start to lead with the wisdom we always knew he could. Like @Earthbound_Misfit, I wish our country was led by a man of this class.

Pachy's avatar

This common sense liberal highly approves of O’s stance and trust me, the R’s in office (and those to come) WILL f**k up what he’s trying to do. But I do have to say that I was a bit disappointed by the speech and found some of its language not “plain and clear” at all.

ragingloli's avatar

It is damage control. The Democrats just suffered a crushing defeat because they did not show what they stand for.
Also, he has nothing to lose. Where was he all those years before?
It just serves to punctuate his cowardice and weakness in the face of right wing opposition.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@ragingloli In previous years, he was preoccupied with less divisive issues, such as buying stakes in major industry and banks to keep them afloat, and drastically escalating the number of drone murders. He did try to stand up on more radical issues occasionally, such as the Affordable Care Act and gun control. But the good people of the US obviously think business is more important than health, and killing isn’t that big a deal regardless of whether it is in Yemen or a US high school.

BeenThereSaidThat's avatar

why am I not surprised that people here take things at face value and don’t understand the actual problems with his announcement. There are so many ways this could all blow up in his face and I hope it does.

The problems are endless. For instance: who are going to actually do these background checks and who will pay for them, how will this effect American citizens who are looking for employment right now, why should people who are applying legally not get to just enter ilegally, why should people like me pay for their children to enter our schools when they don’t even speak our language and will hold back my child’s learning,who is going to pay for their health care, what happens when aunts uncles and cousins want to “join their family here”. What other country in the world would allow me to just enter their country illegally and stay. how long before they are given the right to vote (which the Dems want more than anything).

YOU KNOW WHAT? I can think of at least ten other reasons but I already know the people on this website have their minds made up. BTW, this is only a three year new ruling and the next President can (and probably will) repeal the whole thing.

His speech just showed me again what a spiteful man he is and showed me how angry he is at the recent election. what a petty man he is, as usual it’s “my way or the highway”. I will be happy when the grown ups take over.

It will never be enough.

dappled_leaves's avatar

No, I generally find his speeches to be plain and clear. And he has been saying he would do this for years, so no, there were no surprises.

Jaxk's avatar

@BeenThereSaidThat – So far he’s only giving half the illegals the right to stay. Everything he said to justify this move, pertains to the other half as well. Wait for the other shoe to drop. He’s still got some tools left such as giving a pardon to all illegals. That would blur things quite a bit and it is permanent. Lame duck or not, he can still hurt us and the effects of this presidency will be with us for a long time to come.

BeenThereSaidThat's avatar

@Jaxk If only people could understand the far reaching concept of a topic instead of going with tugging at the heart strings slogans. Every dictator I learned about in school had those slogans down pat.

Jaxk's avatar

@BeenThereSaidThat – Liberals always go for the emotional argument. It’s how they operate (dictators aside). Go to any liberal gathering and you’ll hear screaming and chanting as the main theme.

ragingloli's avatar

the irony is just exquisite

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk As Conservatives pander to fear, you’re living in a glass house there so you shouldn’t be throwing stones. But since you are usually on me for not backing my words, here you go. Passage of note:

“What does this boil down to in practical terms?

In order for a person to embrace a cause or idea, it needs to be meaningful for them. Each type of person has a different way that they assign meaning and relevance to ideas. Let’s take liberals and conservatives, since we are theorizing that they are two distinct thinking styles: liberals would be more flexible and reliant on data, proof, and analytic reasoning, and conservatives are more inflexible (prefer stability), emotion-driven, and connect themselves intimately with their ideas, making those beliefs a crucial part of their identity (we see this in more high-empathy-expressing individuals).”

Best case scenario is that you are stating an opinion on something that is scientifically inconclusive and presenting it as fact. I’ve seen enough on the issue, and the balance is still close enough to the middle that you saying one way or the other (as you did here) would be a bit hypocritical.

@ragingloli Yes, it is.

Jaxk's avatar

Interesting article. I’m sure that it is unbiased even though written by the guy that wrote “The Republican War on Science”. I am surprised that you would claim that Republicans have more Empathy. You have been claiming that high road since I’ve been on this site. I guess that’s how you claim more flexibility, you switch arguments periodically. This is the one I liked:

“Those with a larger amygdala are also thought to experience and express more empathy, perhaps explaining why one of the features of psychopathy is a smaller amygdala.”

I can understand how liberal would be associated with psychopathy.

ragingloli's avatar

I suppose that this is a point against that study, since republicans do not exhibit any signs of empathy, yet lots of signs of psychopathy

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Again, you missed my real point that there isn’t enough of a consensus to actually discern true facts, but that is so common that I am not surprised. Your MO over the years has been to creatively misinterpret things that don’t totally align with your own beliefs.

In fact, you have yet to even figure out what my political beliefs actually are! You think I take that study as fact when the truth is that I am just taking it into consideration as one of many such studied in order to try and discern the actual truth. But that wouldn’t fit with your opinion that I am a far-left nutjob, so you do what you do best and distort reality to your liking.

That does jibe with another thing that a few studies have found; Conservatives are more likely to cherry-pick their information. For instance, here I merely try to make a point about the hypocrisy of doing something you blast others for doing all the time, and you turn around and cherry-pick something in order to try for an attack instead of actually addressing the point.

As for your last sentence, that association is enough of a stretch that I question your ability to use the scientific method. But given that you have ignored inconvenient correlations that disagree with your notions before, it’s no surprise that you would also go the other way and cite a correlation that allows you an ad hominem as a stone cold fact, even in the face of MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary.

@ragingloli Actually, no. I think sociopathy is more accurate, as Conservatives are capable of forming attachments (in the case of Conservatives, it’s to those who share their political views) with others whereas psychopaths view all people as merely “things” to be abused/violated/killed for their own amusement.
Then again, colloquial terminology for mental illnesses is often erroneous. For instance, many think schizophrenia is split/multiple personalities when, clinically, it’s actually detachment from reality.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – Just out of curiosity, other than attacking me, do you have a point. You cite an article that comes to some fairly ridiculous conclusions then tell me that wasn’t your point. You are right in that my opinion is that you are a far left liberal. That is a result of listening to your far left rambling for a few years now. Seems like if you want anyone to believe your centrist,(or whatever you think you are) you should say some centrist (or whatever) things instead of simply attacking me and all conservatives constantly. Hell, I’m conservative and make no bones about it. I think all liberals are idiots. That may not be a provable fact and if the truth be told, I even know a few liberals that are not complete idiots but not enough to alter the trend. That’s an opinion, see if you can discern the difference between that and facts.

ragingloli's avatar

A whisper goes around the world: ‎
Worker, don’t you hear it?‎
these are the voices of war ministers:‎
Worker don’t you hear them?‎

Coal and steel producers are whispering,‎
Chemical warfare production is whispering too,‎
The whispering comes from all continents:‎
Mobilization against the Soviet union!‎

Workers, peasants, Arm yourselves,‎
Arm yourselves with guns.‎
Annihilate the fascist bandit armies,‎
set all Hearts on Fire!‎

Plant your Red banners of Labor
On every ramp, on every factory.‎
Rising from the ruins
of the old society
The socialist World Republic!‎

Workers hear, they gather for battle,‎
And shout for nation and race.‎
This is a war of World leaders
Against the working class.‎

Because the assault against the Soviet Union
Is a strike in the heart of the Revolution.‎
And the War, which sweeps through countries now,‎
Is a war against you Proletarian!‎

Workers, peasants, Arm yourselves,‎
Arm yourselves with guns.‎
Annihilate the fascist bandit armies,‎
set all Hearts on Fire!‎

Plant your Red banners of Labor‎
On every ramp, on every factory.‎
Rising from the ruins‎
of the old society
The socialist World Republic!‎

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Yes, there is. Actually, a few, and I will try and break them down for you since you still don’t understand.

1) There is considerable evidence refuting your assertion that, ” Liberals always go for the emotional argument. It’s how they operate (dictators aside).”, at least any more than Conservatives do. Whether it’s a straw man or a “pot calling the kettle black” is irrelevant at the moment, except insofar as that statement is debatable enough that it cannot be considered fact.

2) Since you brought up the “biased source” argument, you left the option of pointing out your own bias as fair game. Historically, you call people (often me) out for doing precisely what you did there. Sorry if trying to poke a hole in the validity of your argument wound up with a little bit of a jab at you, but opening a door that swings both ways will sometimes hit you in the ass.

3) You attributed a position to me that I do not hold. In accusing me of switching arguments, you assumed that I agreed with the entire article, when in fact I was merely using it to cast reasonable doubt on the assertion that you made to @BeenThereSaidThat. Chronically thinking I am further to the left than I actually am is another misattribution, though I admit that it can be difficult to tell when I am being genuine and when I am just playing Devil’s Advocate simply because I find someone’s position ill-conceived and like ripping bad ideas apart.

4) I am not the only one that has a record. You have quite a record too. A record of blatant bias, double standards and misinterpretations. Point #3 has actually become almost a trademark for you though, so I’m honestly surprised when you don’t twist what I say.

5) Even after all these years, you still don’t know me. You have even gone so far as to ignore some of the things I have said so that your “knowledge” of me fits your preconceived bias rather than adapting to new information to get closer to the truth.

Now, if you still don’t get my point, then I must assume that there is some ideological reason for that; I know you are definitely intelligent enough to get what I’m saying, so it must be some sort of mental block on your end that inhibits effective communications between us. Though, truth be told, that would confirm the trend I have noticed that, in general, Conservatives are too closed-minded listen. There are exceptions, but they are uncommon.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – You surprise me. That was actually a reasonable response. That doesn’t mean I agree with you but at least you used arguments instead of personal attacks, at least for the most part. So let me address your points.

1) You say there is a mountain of evidence to refute the argument liberals always go for the emotional argument. Always may be a bit strong but it’s definitely the preferred tactic. When someone disagrees with Obamacare, they’re called racist. When they disagree with gay marriage, they’re bigots or homophobes. When they disagree with free birth control, they’re sexist. All arguments designed to invoke an emotional response rather than any logical response. When demonstrations get violent, emotions rise and it is always liberals egging them on. Do you remember when OJ was acquitted and conservatives rioted? Me neither. How about Ferguson? I could go on but if you have a mountain of evidence to refute what I said, maybe you could post something that at least you believe.

2) Of course I’m biased. It doesn’t take a membership in Mensa to figure that out. Hell I made the statement we’re arguing about.

3) If you use an article to reinforce your point, Yes I assume you agree with it. Hell you even posted an except from that article with the same position. Is that what you call ‘playing devils advocate’, contradicting yourself? I have only your writings to judge you. If you are posting things you don’t believe, that may be why you seem so disingenuous. I say what I believe. You can agree or disagree, it doesn’t matter but if your playing games I will likely believe you are the character you are playing.

4) Maybe if you said what you mean, your words wouldn’t be so easily twisted.

5) seems like we’ve covered this but what the hell. Just because you say “I’m not a liberal’, doesn’t change the tone or content of you postings. Don’t be ashamed of who you are.

If you think I still haven’t gotten your point, consider that you may not have one.

SecondHandStoke's avatar


When I say “plan and clear” I mean by Obama standards.

rojo's avatar

@jerv Always remember that there are five words you will never hear a conservative say:

“I see your point, but…..”

They are unable to see any point but their own.

rojo's avatar

@ragingloli “It is damage control. The Democrats just suffered a crushing defeat because they did not show what they stand for.” I could not agree more.
Like some one said, if you give the people a choice between a Republican and and Republican, they will choose a Republican every time. wish I knew who said that

jerv's avatar


1) I’ve seen at least as many emotional arguments claiming Obama is a Muslim who wants to take our guns, claims that allowing gay marriage will destroy “traditional” marriage (though Brittney Spears’ marriage was valid despite being only 55 hours), and very heated things about government intervention on everything from your side of the fence that I don’t even know where to begin. Maybe after a good night’s sleep; it’s nearly bedtime now

2) I just hate double standards, so I had to put a spotlight on your’s.

3) I posted that excerpt partly as a time-saver to highlight why I was posting it (to refute your statement), and partly because I wasn’t sure you’d even bother to follow the link; you come across as dismissive enough that I can see you ignoring it.
As for posting things I don’t believe, it’s not quite that simple. The easiest way to explain it is that I like food for thought. I also feel that a belief that isn’t challenged or that cannot withstand a challenge is too weak to be valid. And that goes for my own beliefs as well. But even that doesn’t quite capture it.

4) I come as close as I can within the confines of a relatively non-expressive language allows, with sacrifices for the sake of being concise rather than making every statement have at least 2 levels of footnotes and still be riddled with parenthesis.

5) Compared to the average American, I suppose I am a Liberal. But the US as a whole has swung pretty damn far to the right, so it really depends on where you measure from. I measure by global standards rather than national ones. The root cause of our political disagreements has less to do with Conservative vs Liberal than it does with Idealism vs Pragmatism or Hope vs History though.

@rojo Not entirely true. Remember @Cruiser?

BeenThereSaidThat's avatar

@Jaxk Your point “number 1” is excellent. That “point” is the reason why Liberals today have the upper hand.

We (conservatives) are always labeled for having a different opinion. The reason why we are so divided today is due the fact that if you don’t like obama’s policies you are called a racists. I personally think it will be a long long time before we see another Black President exactly for that reason. Instead of bringing people together he decided to divide Americans into classes. What he fails to admit that it was not only minorities who voted for him. He is President today due to a hell of a lot of “White People” voting for him.

If you didn’t like Bush’s policies you were called a good American for voicing your opinion and standing up in protest was your right as an American. With this president you are suppose to sit down and shut up.

The double standard is mind boggling.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – Just a couple of points and I’m out of here. You have followed me long enough that you should know by now that I almost always read the links and definitely if I comment. If you don’t know that about me by now, you’re not paying attention.

You seem to confuse passionate with emotional. If I make a passionate argument that traditional marriage is disappearing and that is hurting our kids, that out of wed lock child births have escalated dramatically and that marriage has become nothing more than a tax dodge. That is not an emotional argument. It can be argued with facts and logic. But if you call me a bigot, that’s an emotional argument that can not be argued with facts or logic. It is designed to shut down debate. As for your ‘Birthers’, it is no different than the ‘Truthers’. A small group of conspiracy theorists that have nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology.

Finally, if you were in Cuba, you may be labeled a far right nut job. If in Afghanistan you may be labeled a far left loon. If that’s the way you want to be identified, that’s fine with me.

ragingloli's avatar

“If you didn’t like Bush’s policies you were called a good American for voicing your opinion and standing up in protest was your right as an American.
That is a bold faced lie.
Disagreeing with Bush was tantamount to treason.

jerv's avatar

@BeenThereSaidThat Maybe the hardcore left, but the reason I bash Conservatives all the time is a combination of the following factors:

1) Overplaying the fear card.

2) Lying even more than other politicians. For instance, claiming that Planned Parenthood spends over 90% of their funding on abortion services when the actual number is under 2 percent. (This was an actual Congress-critter speaking in-session, not just some random citizen!)

3) Denying science. To me, when 96% of a statistically significant number of experts agree on something, it’s absurd to deny that, especially if you do so by means that go against the scientific method (peer review, repeatable experimentation…). While there are some things where experts disagree and the truth is unclear, there are others where it’s pretty easy to tell the rational people from the wackos.

I have my own bones to pick with the other side, but I see them as the lesser of two evils, and don’t feel as threatened by their benign incompetence as I do by the Right’s recent radicalization. There was a time when I was more neutral, but that was back when Republicans were less radical.

Also, @ragingloli is correct. I’ve had enough people accuse me of hating America for questioning W’s policies that neither side can really claim a moral high ground there, so don’t pretend you guys are innocent. There’s enough mudslinging that everyone is dirty.

@Jaxk “Almost always” leaves enough uncertainty that I will generally err on the side of caution. I almost always make it across the parking lot at home without issue, but I still look for cars driving through instead of just walking across blindly.

Now, from Merriam-Webster:

big·ot – noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Refusing to accept same-sex marriage falls squarely under “refusing to accept members of a particular group”, and therefore is backed by facts and logic; linguistics is a science, and using a word that something fits the definition of is logical.
However, allegations that same-sex marriage is causing the decline of traditional marriage is not based in facts or logic; homosexuals are no more likely to marry as a tax dodge than heterosexuals, are far less likely to have children out of wedlock… that argument is a straw man (or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, depending on context) designed to shut down rational debate.

Yes, there is a grain of truth in the assertion that I cannot tell passionate from emotional, but passion is an emotion, so to my mind, it’s about the same as the difference between Crimson and Red.

I have about as much derision for the Truthers as I do for the Birthers, but the different degrees of unity between the Left and Right mean that Liberals are more likely to disregard their extremist elements than to elect them. Meanwhile, Republicans have allowed radicals to infiltrate their ranks to the point where we have people like Ted Cruz in Congress. (To be fair, being a government of/for/by the people means his election there is more a reflection of the electorate in his district, but it still affects the demographics and perception of the GOP as a whole.) I think that that difference is relevant.

In short, there are HUGE perceptual differences between us. Our minds work quite differently.

Jaxk's avatar


You can’t just overlook the word “unfairly”. I can’t join the Congressional Black Caucus. Guess what, it not because they’re all bigots.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk True, discrimination can be fair sometimes. Why do you think you and I are not allowed on the Women’s bathroom?

However, for example, where is the fairness in opposing same-sex marriage? If there were any proven link between homosexuality and the decline in “traditional marriages”, then I might agree with some of the arguments against gay marriage, but most of the arguments against it are not so well-backed. Often the “argument” is Leviticus 18:22, slippery slope fallacies, and other such rhetoric rather than anything fact-based. And those arguments that are fact-based (often the tax-based angle) also apply to many “traditional” marriages.

I suppose what constitutes “fair” is subjective though. For instance, some religions forbid murder, but consider it fair to kill those who are not of the same faith since non-believers aren’t really people.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – I have no idea what Leviticus 18:22 says. I guarantee that’s not my argument. I’ve been very close to people in the gay community for more than 50 years now. Back before it was popular. Some I like and some I don’t. It has to do with the person not their sexual orientation. My reasons for opposing to gay marriage are the same for my opposition to ‘pre-nups’, east divorce, and marriage of convenience. They trivialize marriage. Saying that some traditional marriages are for tax purposes doesn’t mean we should expand that practice further.

Sorry to all for derailing this thread. It was not my intention to branch off into gay marriage. My tongue got in the way of my eye-tooth and I couldn’t see what I was saying.

ragingloli's avatar

gay marriage does not trivialise marriage

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Your reasons are more valid reasons for setting secular law than some verse from a religious text that not all Americans believe in, and thus more fair. I applaud you for being in the minority there. However, I fail to see how you could really make a fair law that would bar same-sex marriages without affecting “childless by choice” couples while also causing issues for same-sex couples with kids.
Then again, considering marriage used to be basically sealing a contract between the fathers of the spouses rather than anything involving children or love, it could be argued that marriage (at least “traditional” marriage) has been trivial since the beginning!

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – You need to do a little research about marriage, it was all about children. In ancient Rome if you wife didn’t bear children you could give her back. In ancient Japan the groom lived with in the wife’s parents house with her until she had a child then they moved out and started their own family. Marriage was always about children.

ragingloli's avatar

children male inheritors

Jaxk's avatar

@ragingloli – Sometimes they got girls. I read somewhere that sometimes they even liked them :-)

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Depends on where you were and when. As most Americans are of European descent, and our culture is an evolutionary offshoot of European civilization branching off in the 17th century, I think it safe to say that the history of Western European culture around four hundred years ago is more directly relevant than Ancient Rome or Japan. And since we no longer allow 12-year-olds to get married (though it took Texas a while to change that), I think it safe to say that the definition of “marriage” has evolved anyways.

rojo's avatar

” I can’t join the Congressional Black Caucus. Guess what, it not because they’re all bigots.” is it because you are not a congressman? ;)

Jaxk's avatar

@rojo – You don’t know that for sure. You’re guessing :-)

rojo's avatar

but is it a good guess??

Jaxk's avatar

I’d rate it ‘Fair’.

rojo's avatar

I’ll take fair

rojo's avatar

David Kaiser on the use of executive power during crisis.

jerv's avatar

Well, if Congress won’t run the country, someone has to. Why not the President?

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther