6/19/12 questions and discussion
1-does separating rich and poor create jobs?3
2-what should each of us sacrifice to save our economy?4/2
3-what is the sanctity moral?4/1
4-should Roger Clemens be allowed into the Hall of Fame?3
5-do Republicans really want to throw a million people out of nursing homes?4/1
if W. Bush had done with immigration what Obama just did, would his impeachment have been called for?4/3
Jim: Obama has made a very clever political move. The chief executive is most interested in law enforcement. This is a decision to ignore existing law. Congress can do this, presidents can not. I think W would have been impeached for it. I am angry that Republicans aren't impeaching Obama over it. It's about how our country runs. This is not like the Signing Statement issue. This is not about right and wrong, this is election year politics.
Kevin: neither party has consistently enforced all the laws.
Dick: are we aware of this issue's popularity?
Jm: 64% approve of what Obama's decision to break a law.
Jon: it's about selective enforcement. We all know of examples where law enforcement decides to turn a blind eye to crime. Sometimes we agree sometimes we don't. Apparently we agree (collectively) this was a good thing to break the law over.
Kevin: Reagan gave 'em amnesty. How was he treated?
Jim: that was a bill he signed into law. It was not selective enforcement.
Kevin: Obama has forced everybody's hand. People have to get in line on either side of the issue.
Jim: is that the way we want our government to work?
Kevin: none of us here do. But this is how real politics is done.
Dick: if anybody needs impeaching it's our supreme court who claim that corporations are people, money is free speech, and those accused of a crime are not necessarily to get the right to confront their accusers if it costs too much money.
Jon: Dick Cheney was pretty creative at avoiding even being investigated for some of his actions (alternately arguing he couldn't be investigated because he -- as Vice Pres. -- was both part of the congress AND the executive branches), or our Justice Department's slippery definition of torture. The decision to turn a blind eye depends on context. After 9/11 we as a nation were much more likely to accept fuzzy definitions of torture (imagine if any previous president had tried the same thing!). The national mood now seems solidly on the side of breaking this particular feature of our immigration law.
Jim: it's a complete abrogation of government responsibility.
Jon: two days ago my supervisor at work told me he decided not to write me up for a policy violation. I am grateful for it but his doing so was in violation of his job duties. He put himself in potential hot water, especially if he were to view rules enforcement as strictly as Jim would have it.
jim: we have a system in place, Obama's decision is opposite to that.
Jon: doesn't this happen all the time?
Jim: at lower levels of power, yes, but we either live by the rules or we don't.
Lynn: what is it symptomatic of?
Jim: dysfunction. But, fortunately, we can un-elect 'em.