[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

He replied ‘Because President Obama has made it clear that he will not enforce any bill provisions that he doesn't agree with. So its pointless’, and he gave obvious examples. I thought he made a good case for himself.

He would have made an even better case if he had read your and my posts on FR. To the Dem's statement

ISRAEL: On the issue of enforcement, let's get away from the sound bites and understand fact. Under this president, deportations are at an all-time high. Border crossings are at an all-time low.

King should hire you and me to prep him for the debate. He shuld have rebutted with:

From the article "It Depends on What the Meaning of ‘Deportations’ Is": Specifically, those illegals caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they’re returned are being dishonestly counted as deportations. The point of this Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) is to disrupt smuggling networks and make it harder to just keep crossing until you get through. But they’re still just returns, without any “administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry.” This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 100,000 in the past two years. Smith noted, “When the numbers from this Border Patrol program are removed from this year’s deportation data, it shows that removals are actually down nearly 20% from 2009.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”ISRAEL: On the issue of enforcement, let's get away from the sound bites and understand fact. Under this president, deportations are at an all-time high. Border crossings are at an all-time low.
.....
King should hire you and me to prep him for the debate. He shuld have rebutted with: “

I saw that too, I thought of mentioning that here then I forgot. He got away with it,.

On NBC MTP Lowery was outnumbered and one of the libs replies to him claiming CBO numbers showing how much deficit reduction the Senate bill would cause, and when Lowery tried to respond Gregory gave the floor to another of the four libs on the panel with a completely different question.

I believe the cooked deficit reduction comes mainly from payroll/entitlement taxes (on them and employer assuming it doesnt increase employment too) by COMPLETELY ignoring that under current law that they would be entitled to even more $$$$ back later as a result.

In other words it makes believe they will pay those taxes without getting the benefits.