Originally Posted by Laterlater

Im laughing inside.
Hard.

Did you just copy and paste the first thing you found that sounded like it kind'a (maybe) made your point for you?

Jesus, do you even read what you post yourself? Apparently not.

You realize that none of their points set forth, in the very same damn article (that you apparently read) where satisfied or even remotely meet under DACA correct? Exactly as I said in this thread about such group. Good job reinforcing my point inadvertently though.

http://observatoriocolef.org/?notici...zation-for-all

You must be reading impaired. I mentioned this already, in the first post of this thread, -- and the fact that their part in it was largely negligible, window dressing - especially given that the DHS Memo was drafted months in advance, prior to it.

In case you forgot: Obama, in what can only be described as a cynical deliberate political move, decided to act more than a year later, to shore up his Latino support before the 2012 re-election.

Is that it? You know the decision to meet with them was largely for PR right? As the actual legislative/executive decision was reached prior to the whole conference call.

You are unbelievably thick.

Knowing about an organization is not tantamount to endorsing or even remotely being influenced by it. By that - strange logic - DREAM Act would have passed by now. After all, I know about some group that endorse it. Right?

My knowledge of a thing, even if it has brand recognition, again, is not a necessary or sufficient condition for it to influence one's choice of action.

This principle, which you are advancing in your desperation, is beyond pathetic. And you know it.

The obvious conclusion is that it had no bearing on their legislative decision making.

Which is the whole point I am trying to make.

But carry on with your inconsequential and meaningless social media/tweeter battles, against an organization that is largely on your side.

Try again.


(I actually enjoy this.)