
As parody twitter accounts go...this is comedy gold.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 9:56, Reply)

All seems a bit self-congratulatory for simply recycling the same digs at UKIP that have been doing the rounds for years.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 10:39, Reply)

( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 10:56, Reply)

( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 11:04, Reply)

Someone get a message through
To Captain Snort
That they better start assembling
The boys from the fort.
[And] Keep Mrs. Honeyman right out of sight,
'Cause there's gonna be riot
Down in Trumpton Tonight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCYOQOn-NPU
( , Fri 5 Dec 2014, 16:52, Reply)

You can download it here www.chelseasaunders.com/mariocars2
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 9:55, Reply)

like why is there some bloke watching a child doing twister in the bottom corner? And what's a public access show?
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 10:44, Reply)

Public access as in a community channel. There was a twister game happening at the same time for some reason.
( , Fri 5 Dec 2014, 1:12, Reply)

I enjoyed the silliness, and the very serious message within.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 10:51, Reply)

and didn't see any exploding bollocks
i am disappoint!
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 10:20, Reply)

:/
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 12:04, Reply)

Hopefully not GC yet, this only shows 85,431 views.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 3:06, Reply)

my link doesn't have the commercial/promo tag at the end.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 5:32, Reply)

I wish it hadn't. As I remember I almost wanked meself into a coma over Bonny Langford's beetle bonnet.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:49, Reply)

( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 11:10, Reply)

The end.
Also, it reminded me of this
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 8:53, Reply)

My pink windmill didn't even twitch.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 10:38, Reply)

And enormously-time consuming. Can't help wondering how much the person that made that was paid.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:34, Reply)

You sir are worse than hitler.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 9:47, Reply)

https://www.youtube.com/user/Superiorpakfan/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/amrepmike33/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/MitchellM15/videos
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 0:55, Reply)

Match made in heaven.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 1:03, Reply)

...after Adam had tried to mate with all the animals on earth
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:20, Reply)

( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 0:57, Reply)

She must be a lesbian.
Susan Calman said so.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:53, Reply)

the rest are in loveless marriages, are swingers, or are unwed couples kept together by the heroin habit they share
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:18, Reply)

Just imagine the luxury.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:44, Reply)

Oh! On second thought That is actually a great idea and I think I will make one, it will hide me completely from the rest of the family.
Edit damn uneditable subject lines... I'd !!!!
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:49, Reply)

back off now! don't try and bum me with a rusty spanner it's only 33 seconds long
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:51, Reply)

Reminds me of an early 80s ZX Speccy drum sequencer.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:55, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:56, Reply)

... probably. I can't be bothered looking.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:58, Reply)

... not suspicious at all.
(Of course wireless is going to 'sound' like this. Duh! And I use the word 'sound' in the loosest sense of the word.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:57, Reply)

being of the tape loaded computer game generation I expect there would be a sound with my 2014 data connection. silly me
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:16, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:13, Reply)

But to be fair, he does post some good links every now and then
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:45, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:46, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:48, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:08, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:49, Reply)

I think the resounding response to this will be there is nothing abnormal or unreasonable about what he's saying here. Because, well, there isn't.
YAY SOSHALESM
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:54, Reply)

I don't think anyone is saying "no immigration", but rather, follow the process rather than skirting the law.
I always laugh when people say he's a good speaker. Reader, maybe.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:07, Reply)

And he *is* following the process. See felixcoen's post down there.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:14, Reply)

Look at what Obama said: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTSQh27oTU
And choosing how to enforce a law does not create a program by which work permits can be granted. All this takes money and needs a bureaucracy to enforce (ha!, enforce) which cannot be done without Congress.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:16, Reply)

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:27, Reply)

This is the same DOJ that thought it was legal to allow thousands of assault rifles over the border, killing thousands of Mexicans and at least one federal agent. The same DOJ that hides evidence of political targeting by the revenue service.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:29, Reply)

You're getting a bit tinfoil-hattery now.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:38, Reply)

Explaining immigration, the USCIS (which handles work permits) the fees involved and how they are paid for. But I have had a shit day at work. Have just got in, and have an open bottle of wine in front of me. Which seems higher on my list than explaining something you could look up on a government website. *cheers!*
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:31, Reply)

You know like when the Rebels defeated theEmpire at the end of Jedi.
Only to find out he's got a drone army of his own and is being spilly bloody with his xbox controller.
Thing is though the left here still has their blinkers on and think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread even though he's more right wing than are own right wingers.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 8:55, Reply)

It is codified in the immigration laws that he has the right to do this. Congress relinquished control over this issue to the executive branch back in 2006 under the bush administration. It is contained in the measure "U.S. Code § 1227". (Great explanation there) This is exactly the same provision that Bush used to grant amnesty. Obama is doing exactly the same thing, only on a bigger scale.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:04, Reply)

I would suggest you consult with a constitutional lawyer, like President Obama, as to how much power he has. Again, he has sworn to "faithfully execute the laws" that are passed, not create programs. If Congress doesn't act it does not grant authority, no matter how bad he wants it.
Here is Obama answering the question whether he has the power: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTSQh27oTU
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:13, Reply)

But I suspect his argument is that he is not 'changing the law' he is 'following the law'. He is exercising powers that have been granted to him by Congress.
You might think that's incorrect, but it will be for the Suprem Court to decide. I suspect they might side with him, especially considering, you know, the law and all that.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:22, Reply)

It really isn't for the courts to decide: the enumeration of powers is clear. The courts should be the last resort. And I'm ashamed at democrats who have surrendered their powers given under the constitution to the executive. There were repubs that went against Nixon and dems that went against Clinton because the House and Senate used to not be rubber stamps of the executive, but worked for voters.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:27, Reply)

Read to the end of US Code 1227;
"Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to grant a stay of removal or deportation in any case not described in this subsection."
To me this means
"Any deportation process which is not already stayed may be stayed on the order of the Secretary of Homeland Security or of the Attorney General"
You may read the law differently, and that's what the court is there for. The law is not badly formed, it might just be open to interpretation.
And with that, I'm off to bed.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:35, Reply)

Yes, he must "faithfully execute the laws" and he is free to create programs within the confines of those laws. The fact is, as shown in '8 U.S.C. § 1227', is that he has that power. You may not like it, but that's the law and it is his prerogative.
The video from Fox News you posted is great, and it shows Obama's' cynicism. But he appeared to me at least, to be making (cynical) political statements about what is politically impossible not what is legally possible. He's had this right from day 1 because Bush (and the then Republican congress) created it. Largely because it is useful in terrorism cases which is a much more concerning abuse than this.
I'm no Obama-bot. I think he's been a disaster for the American left in particular but this 'King Obama, Chairman Obama, Générale Obama' nonsense is harmful.
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:57, Reply)

Remember, no law is made by the executive. Bush had an overwhelming majority of both democrats and republicans to go to war, to address terrorism. Yes, the dems later said they didn't mean it during the following elections to appeal to the anti-war base (where have they gone? Silenced.) And just because one president issues an executive order does not grant power to, or limit subsequent presidents. Creating programs must be done on pursuant to a statutory grant, followed by exhaustive comment periods so that affected parties may influence the way an agency creates and enforces regulation. This is done for due process.
My real gripe? Is that he knows he doesn't have the power to do this, but just wanted to poke the repubs in the eye after the last election where he had his ass handed to him. I speak Spanish, so I do pro bono work with lots of migrant workers who believe he has saved them. The reality is the courts will likely overturn it, and if not, he has no funding to do the things he proposed. It will be like the myriad of other campaign promises he made, believing that good intentions, not reality are all that matters. Much like his "pre-emptive" Nobel Peace prize, it is all based on what he said he would do, not what he did. But to some, they are satisfied saying "well, at least he wanted to, but thoses other guys hate gays, women and the environment."
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 0:57, Reply)

"Remember, no law is made by the executive", well of course it isn't, that's my whole point, the law was passed in the congress in 2006 that granted the executive the right to create such programs."And just because one president issues an executive order does not grant power to, or limit subsequent presidents". This is a misreading. The limitations of 'executive decisions' are set by the congress and apply to the office of the executive and not to the individual who is currently in office. Legally Obama has exactly the same right as Bush to do this. These powers pass through presidents. "Creating programs must be done on pursuant to a statutory grant, followed by..", Yes, and that happened under the Bush administration back in 2006. The legal groundwork was laid back then and Obama is simply utilizing it.
Now to the politics. "well, at least he wanted to, but thoses other guys hate gays, women and the environment." Well I agree with that political sentiment in many ways. It's that cringe worthy, all too common liberal sentiment that says "Well yes, he has bombed 8 countries in 6 years and they've all been majority Muslim, but he has been pretty good on gay rights!". So I agree with that part of what you say. But that's not the issue here. If we are talking about legal issues then lets stick to that.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:18, Reply)

( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 1:30, Reply)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXidW7fEH8g
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:52, Reply)

so it was OK. Can't have black men going around thinking they can do the same stuff as white men, it's just not right is it.
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 9:22, Reply)

( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:24, Reply)

and in the final battle Rod (played by Arnie) has to fight Grotbags on the roof for control of the broadcast antenna
( , Wed 3 Dec 2014, 22:36, Reply)

"There's somebody at the door! There's somebody at the door!"
"Sarah Connor?"
( , Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:42, Reply)
« Older links | Newer links »