Zero Sum

What was done in this case was not legislation. Nor was it something that was outside of the power of the Executive branch. Deferred action is a power that was given by congress to the President quite some time ago. It can only delay deportation, as well as provide the ability to apply for an EAD in the meantime. It does not provide a path for permanent residency or citizenship as only congress can do that.

I would be willing to bet that many feel the unfair advantage is being given to workers in China, whose jobs were taken from American workers.
If one lacks qualification, it would behoove one to seek retraining instead of blaming it on immigrants. It has been tried in Nazi Germany with disastrous consequences.

I'm not glossing over the fact that they're not here legally. That wasn't their choice. For most of them, this is the only home they've ever known. What should they do, kick them out at 18 and send them to a country they don't know and aren't familiar with? Can you even imagine? Growing up only to one day be told "you don't belong here" and be shipped off to a country you've likely never even been to and have to go make a life for yourself? I can't.
It doesn't spur resentment in me at all. I came here legally by choice. These people had their choice made by parents who made the wrong choice. I don't agree with punishing the children for the acts of the parents.
I mean, I can get where it rubs people the wrong way. I honestly can. I just don't agree with the alternative.

It really is immaterial who gets the job. What matters is the bottomline and the shareholders returns. Having said that, jobs tend to go to those who are better suited, so if any of these kids can do a better job than someone else so be it. In that case, these kids will be paying for those who are waiting for their EAD.

Alas it is relevant. They were brought here as kids. Many do not know any other country and for obvious reasons, many have never been anywhere else other than the US.
They are not getting a free pass. This is not Reagan's amnesty when everyone got a free pass.

If you read the copy, you will notice they will have to pay filing fees as well. Considering their EAD should come within a month, they will be working and paying taxes before you do, so technically, they are the ones paying for you, while you wait on your EAD.
In any case, they are not illegal, no more than a K-1 person is when out of status. They were brought to this country as kids and America is the only home many of them have ever known, our flag the one to which they pledge allegiance. They have nowhere to go back and except for papers, they are as American as the rest of us.

Their outrage is all but feigned. Those upset today are the same who applauded Reagan's full amnesty in the 80's.
Their pretense is purely partisan.

Trayvon's parents and family were involved in trying to bring this to the public's attention far before Obama made ONE COMMENT or Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton got involved. It was a big deal BEFORE Obama, which is why he ended up being asked about it. It was already national news.

...and Zimmerman drew first blood. Whether this cousin's testimony is admissible is less important than the fact she did come out and speak up as a victim of abuse. That's after all the gold tooth, Facebook thug photos, and other character assassinations of the dead teenager Zimmerman shot were trumpeted about in the media by those who were looking for any excuse not to sympathize with the victim or his family. What comes around, goes around.

I have no idea what you're trying to say for most of this, but I'll attempt to reply anyway.
I said "If only all legal gun owners were sane, good citizens" ... that does not mean all of them are insane. It means some of them are, and use their guns for BAD things instead of "GOOD" things.
Where did I talk about reducing gun ownership?
Where did I say other countries with no guns didn't have as much violence? I said gun violence is a problem in the US and it is.
You are responding to things I never even said. It's ridiculous and hard to follow.

I think the last four years have been the worst for the entire country in a long time but I am afraid we will still feel the effects of the last administration for much longer. The clean up will take years.

You have a short memory.

What used to be called fiscal conservatives are now that dying breed called moderates! The tea party has rejected reality and practicality in favor of wild-eyed ideology and outright paranoia! It might be entertaining to watch them try to actually govern except that real people's lives can be turned upside down by their stupidity!
Them damn libruls with all them big words!

Let's see. The first 6 months after Obama was inaugurated the economy bled 3 million jobs.
Travel back further in time and you have the start of The Great Recession. Banks around forever folding left and right. So bad that the government had to takeover the housing market (Fannie/Freddie) and even the auto market!
Go back further.
Jan 08: -76k jobs
Feb 08: -83k
Mar 08: -88k
Apr 08: -67k
May 08: -47k
Jun 08: -100k
July 08: -67k
Aug 08: -127k
By November 08 Obama was elected and job losses were over 1/2 a million for the month!

FROM NOVEMBER 2008 TO MARCH 2009, WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS ON LIFE SUPPORT, WE AVERAGED A LOSS OF 732,000 JOBS A MONTH AVERAGE!
The stock market (Dow Jones) crashed from over 11,500 points in September 2008 to under 6,500 points by March 9th! A level not seen since 1997. A full decade of gains wiped out in a few months!

The job market and economy has recovered DRASTICALLY. There is stability in the economy. Companies are hiring.
We've had 28 straight months of private sector positive job growth. With over 4.4 million jobs created since Feb 2010!!! Over the same period government has shrank by over 500,000 jobs! You have to suffer from UDI syndrome (Uninformed Delusional Imbecile) to not be able to see that the economy has turned around.

Show me where I even mentioned banning guns and then I might reply to you some more.
Until then, you're simply talking out of your butt.
Gun violence isn't an issue? Well okay then. Glad that's been solved.

In 1965, Bond was one of eight African Americans elected to the Georgia House of Representatives after passage of civil rights legislation, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On January 10, 1966, however, Georgia state representatives voted 184-12 not to seat him because he publicly endorsed SNCC's policy regarding opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. They disliked Bond's stated sympathy for persons who were "unwilling to respond to a military draft".[5] A federal District Court panel ruled 2-1 that the Georgia House had not violated any of Bond's federal constitutional rights. In 1966, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in the case of Bond v. Floyd (385 U.S. 116) that the Georgia House of Representatives had denied Bond his freedom of speech and was required to seat him.
.....
Just goes to show the kind of irreverence toward great Americans by transplanted blabber mouths who ironically make claims they can't substantiate.

The Democrats? How did it pass the House lacking GOP support? How did the GOP let it pass the Senate seeing that they can stop any bill they want there and have done so hundreds of times over the last couple of years? This one Mitch could not filibuster? Why?

And you vote!

The article you posted also contains a lot of speculation. The scientists who support this don't deny the greenhouse effect of rising CO2 but believe rising temperature will be mitigated by other climatic feedback. One of the scientists goes so far as to cite CO2 levels and atmospheric conditions on Venus and Mars.
In an isolated scenario, scientists generally agree that rising CO2 correlates with rising temperature. It's very hard to predict what effect positive and negative feedback will have on temperature until it actually happens. Since there's no real way to test it in a real world model, I would say it's practically all speculation at this point.

Um, no it wasn't. The atmosphere that we now have on Earth is far different than it was a billion years ago. Life as we know it would not exist on this planet without the delicate balance of the Carbon Cycle, which has remained relatively constant for millions of years because there were no sudden, large influxes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Volcanic activity was the biggest contributor prior to the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.
What a lot of denialists fight against is the idea that our ecosystem is fragile. While it is true that planet Earth will go on and exist without us, life as we know it is in serious jeopardy because of human activity in the form of CO2 emissions. The denialists typically have a pro-libertarian viewpoint that we should be free to use our natural resources without any concern about sustainability and that is very ignorant and dangerous viewpoint. Our resources are finite. Our ecosystem is fragile and if we don't take measures towards a more sustainable future, our children's children and their children will be faced with a worldwide ecological disaster.
Dude, the modern scientific method is light years ahead of what you call 'scientific discovery' of 700 years ago. But lets assume that you still think that somehow all these modern bodies of science who study climate are simply wrong. So, we can send a satellite that studies the moons of Saturn with pinpoint accuracy, but somehow, we can't see a cause and effect relationship between CO2 emissions and the earth's temperature?
Seriously, you need to step back and realize just how farcical it is to insist the science on GW is wrong or a lie. At some point, logic hits you on the head, or leave all logic and rationale out the window.

So you think it's foolish to accept the world-wide consensus* among the bodies of science who study the climate that CO2 emissions are adding enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which the world's normal Carbon Cycle cannot simple get rid of, but think it's more logical to believe whatever bunk you've bought into by fringe groups? Where's the rationale in that? The only way you could make peace with such a position is to believe it's all a conspiracy, which has absolutely no logic or rationale to it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
....
Once you realize just how far out denialism of the science of GW is, you'll see just how far you must take it to insist that the experts are wrong and you are magically correct.

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.
CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third.
However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.
Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss.
However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.
These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent.
Limiting factors
However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.
The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation.
For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees).
Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO2 (see Climate change warning over food production).
In the oceans, increased CO2 is causing acidification of water. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2 concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species.
Levelling off
Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But higher plant growth will only lock away CO2 if there is an accumulation of organic matter.
Studies of past climate changes suggest the land and oceans start releasing more CO2 than they absorb as the planet warms. The latest IPCC report concludes that the terrestrial biosphere will become a source rather than a sink of carbon before the end of the century.
What's more, even if plant growth does rise overall, the direct and indirect effects of higher CO2 levels will be disastrous for biodiversity. Between 20 to 30% of plant and animal species face extinction by the end of the century, according to the IPCC report.
As for food crops, the factors are more complex. The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones.
Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.
http://www.newscient...production.html

Danno, the christian, albeit a gay hating one, has never stated how much he donates

So you become a bleeding heart when it's these so-called mom and pop business hurt by regulations, but turn a blind eye when it's corporations that run mom and pop businesses out of town. Keep up with the irony, it's giving me a good laugh.

I know you weren't. As I point out the flaws in claiming skepticism in a science certain 'skeptics' show no proof of actually understanding. You point out obvious pragmatic issues that are right on target. Others... not so much, while these things are obviously brought to their attention to their stubborn denialism. Clearly you should see the parallels.