The President's Speech Tonight

Are you saying if those s...s voted republican that they would be welcomed with open arms? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Actually NO, they are breaking the law and the law is important to conservatives. If you want to bring people into this country then change the law correctly and lawfully. Same thing for gay marriage. Change the law instead of having judges force people to applaude a deviant lifestyle. Weren't you also surprised that conservatives recognized the courage and sacrifice of Tammy Duckworth when her own party leadership will not?

and btw what Obama did tonight is simply the right and moral thing to do. Like he said deporting these folks is NOT going to happen so a common sense approach was and is a good idea. Now Obama forced the Republicans to finally get off their lazy obstructionist asses to finally do some work and draft a bill for passage into Law. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Dude you high. I might on a bad day use Barry Obama to wipe my skinny ass.

Actually NO, they are breaking the law and the law is important to conservatives. If you want to bring people into this country then change the law correctly and lawfully. Same thing for gay marriage. Change the law instead of having judges force people to applaude a deviant lifestyle. Weren't you also surprised that conservatives recognized the courage and sacrifice of Tammy Duckworth when her own party leadership will not? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So it is okay for people to bring lawsuits to ask the court system to overturn gun control laws that are thought to be too restrictive but not okay for people to bring lawsuits to ask the court to overturn laws that ban gay marriage?

"Deviant lifestyle"??? When did anyone make you the person in charge of determining what is or is not a deviant lifestyle? I'm sure frequenting a hooker website would be thought of as a "deviant lifestyle" by many conservatives.

Hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth about anything.
I am positive he was deceptive in his speech. He has no credibility and can not be trusted.

So it is okay for people to bring lawsuits to ask the court system to overturn gun control laws that are thought to be too restrictive but not okay for people to bring lawsuits to ask the court to overturn laws that ban gay marriage?

"Deviant lifestyle"??? When did anyone make you the person in charge of determining what is or is not a deviant lifestyle? I'm sure frequenting a hooker website would be thought of as a "deviant lifestyle" by many conservatives. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Webster's defined "deviant" many, many years ago, speedy:

de·vi·ant
ˈadjective 1. departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

... and the behavior of that 5%, or less, of the population is deviant -- "departing from usual or accepted standards" -- when compared with the other 95% of the population, speedy.

Webster's defined "deviant" many, many years ago, speedy:

de·vi·ant
ˈadjective 1. departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

... and the behavior of that 5% of the population is deviant -- "departing from usual or accepted standards" -- when compared with the other 95% of the population, speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The definition you cited says NOTHING about percentages. The majority of the people in the U.S. support gay marriage. 35 states have legalized gay marriage. I would say that in today's U.S. gay marriage is an "accepted standard" by the majority of the people.

Jews make up less than 5% of the U.S. population. Is their behavior "deviant"?

The definition you cited says NOTHING about percentages. The majority of the people in the U.S. support gay marriage. 35 states have legalized gay marriage. I would say that in today's U.S. gay marriage is an "accepted standard" by the majority of the people. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Webster's defines "deviant", speedy. Further, speedy, the laws of 35 states do not change that definition, 5% does not constitute the norm -- "the usual or accepted" -- and the majority of the people in the U.S. do not engage in homosexual -- "deviant" -- activities.

Webster's defines "deviant", speedy. Further, speedy, the laws of 35 states do not change that definition, 5% does not constitute the norm -- "the usual or accepted" -- and the majority of the people in the U.S. do not engage in homosexual -- "deviant" -- activities. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Fortunately for the majority of the people in this country your opinions are meaningless.

Fortunately for the majority of the people in this country your opinions are meaningless. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It's not an "opinion", speedy. It's a verifiable definition -- look it up! The fact that you imagine homosexual behavior isn't "deviant" shows how fucked-in-the-head you lib-retards are, speedy. The sexual proclivities of that 5% of the population are not, and never have been, "the usual or accepted" sexual practices engaged in by the balance of the population.

It's not an "opinion", speedy. It's a verifiable definition -- look it up! The fact that you imagine homosexual behavior isn't "deviant" shows how fucked-in-the-head you lib-retards are, speedy. The sexual proclivities of that 5% of the population are not, and never have been, "the usual or accepted" sexual practices engaged in by the balance of the population.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

5% is a number YOU are coming up with. When 55% of the U.S. population believes gay marriage is okay, and 70% of the states believe gay marriage is okay, what you believe to be "deviant behavior" is totally irrelevant.

de·vi·ant (dv-nt)adj. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

End of discussion. IDIOT. The accepted standards of the people in the U.S. is that gay marriage is fine. Being gay is accepted by most people. YOU are the one engaging in deviant behavior by not accepting the NORM.

You also failed to respond to my question to you -- are Jews deviates since they make up less than 5% of our population, thereby differing from the accepted social standards?

Dude you high. I might on a bad day use Barry Obama to wipe my skinny ass. Originally Posted by R.M.

^ If this is all you have to contribute I suggest you continue to remain silent. However, if you have something meaningful and can provide some kind of real insight then please enlighten me.

I'm listening.

5% is a number YOU are coming up with. When 55% of the U.S. population believes gay marriage is okay, and 70% of the states believe gay marriage is okay, what you believe to be "deviant behavior" is totally irrelevant.

de·vi·ant (dv-nt)adj. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

End of discussion. IDIOT. The accepted standards of the people in the U.S. is that gay marriage is fine. Being gay is accepted by most people. YOU are the one engaging in deviant behavior by not accepting the NORM.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Only 5% of the population engages in homosexual activities, speedy. The vast majority of people are NOT homosexual nor do they engage in homosexual -- deviant -- sexual acts, speedy. Hence, by definition homosexual acts are not "usual or accepted" in the bedrooms of the vast majority of the American public, speedy, and until 50% of the population actively and routinely engages in the deviant sexual acts your moronic ass is so vociferously defending, those acts will never be anything other than "deviant".

Well, from my "security perspective"

-- LE (meaning the feds) now have a tremendous tool to build a data base that encompasses illegals

-- admitting to the feds that they are here illegally

-- providing an address where they live and additionally their employer data

-- possibly exposing their illegal and legal relatives to federal scrutiny

Don't you think that

many illegals will think at least twice or three times before completing any of the above?

= = = = =

That said, personally I believe there has to be some sort of equitable and compassionate solution to the immigration issues affecting both millions of immigrants (legal and otherwise) and the businesses and economic opportunities denied.

Pert near all of us citizens are descendants from immigrants to the U.S. who came here to enjoy our freedoms and our economic opportunities. (Personal disclosure, I am a second generation native born citizen.)

Many, not all, obviously, here illegally are seeking much the same and are willing to contribute as well.

= = = = =

One example of our immigration law challenge is the inordinate number of foreign students graduating from our colleges and universities who study hard and many of whom would love to stay in the U.S. and contribute to our economy, but, because they came on a student visa, there is no easy transition to employment due to limited numbers of employment visas. They must return to their homeland (or go to another country) to apply, and thus their talents are placed elsewhere. What a loss of potential.

Facts are pesky little buggers, aren't they! Here is a little photo for 1986 that might help you get through the day . . . Amnesty Signing in 1986, expanded by Executive Action one year later by Uncle Ronnie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us...a-new-one.html

^ If this is all you have to contribute I suggest you continue to remain silent. However, if you have something meaningful and can provide some kind of real insight then please enlighten me.

I'm listening. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Really? With the babble that you are typing you are one to talk...