I know, I suck. But a serious question:

[Savannahmann]

136. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

If President Obama had a friendly congress, then minor changes and delays to the ACA would be a breeze. But President Obama does not have a friendly congress. So what they have been doing is deciding not to enforce. Putting in writing that the US Government will not seek to enforce this rule, or that deadline. It's called selective enforcement. What it is saying is that we know you're breaking the rules, but we're not going to bust you for it. That was the Bush Co. approach to wiretapping as an example.

So while Clapper did lie to Congress, and it was a lie, no grey area what so ever. No complications, the Administration is selectively enforcing the whole Perjury charge.

The same way that the Government selectively enforces the law against cops. This by the way is not unique to the Obama Administration, but is common across every level of Government.

Torture is illegal, but the CIA did torture people. None of them has been brought up on charges for that illegal action. That doesn't mean that the torture did not take place, it is selective enforcement at work. See the case of Robert Lady if you doubt me.

You can't say that the absence of a prosecution is proof that the crime didn't happen. The absence of prosecution means only that the Government approves of the criminal action, not that it didn't take place.

If I saw a child in a locked car and felt that the child was in danger. I could break the window, go into the car, and remove the child. In doing so, I have technically committed the following crimes. Misdemeanor Breaking and Entering. Felony Kidnapping. Now the chances of me being charged with those crimes is fairly slim, nearly non existent, but that doesn't mean I did not break the window, and take the child if I am not charged. It just means that the Government approves of my criminal activity. This presumes that I notify the authorities of my actions immediately, and I don't take the child to my home.

Police ignore petty crimes of people they use as informants all the time. So long as the criminal provides information on more serious criminals, the police ignore the lesser criminal activity to get bigger fish. Does that mean that the informant is not a criminal? Not at all, it is selective enforcement at a lower level.

Your arguments are flawed, fatally in the terminology of debate. Your assertions are baseless, and the argument that the ends justifies the means is utterly disproven by history, logic, and common sense. If you keep this up, they are liable to elect you to congress.