100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does anyone else see the hyocrisy in the Arizona immigration | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Sat 05/29/10 08:09 AM
|
|
It was more than that that was wrong with his post.
[ All you can do is sit there like a trained parrot. Repeating the things it has been taught, but not actually putting any real critical thought or using any real logic to say those things. Aw but this is what I would say about you. It is all I see from you. Time for you to do your homework And that would only prove that you don't really KNOW your azz from a hole in the ground. Where have I repeated myself other than to say that you are usually so full of crap you squeak? Where have I repeated myself ( without there being any LOGIC behind it ) other than to say that Illegal is ILLEGAL?? Sounds like a classic case of projection on your part. Someone " comes correct " using logic and critical thought, so you simply can't handle it and resort to the tactics of a five year old who wants to be heard. Repetition doesn't make you any less wrong than usual. It only makes your Liberalism ( no mater how much you try to deny it ) that much more obvious. I have to be honest. Playing with folks like you actually gets tiresome after a while. It's kinda like walking face first into a wall of stupidity with no helmet on. Liberalism ( again...no matter HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO DENY IT ) is kinda like a car crash. You know you shouldn't slow down to take a look...but you just can't help doing it anyway to see what kind of stupidity they'll come up with next. It would be more accurate to use the word “left-liberalism” in this case. “Liberalism” is an enlightenment era pihlosophy that almost noone understands anymore (I definitely don't see any on this site). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be more accurate to use the word “left-liberalism” in this case. “Liberalism” is an enlightenment era pihlosophy that almost noone understands anymore (I definitely don't see any on this site). Left liberalism? Does that mean they're batting for the other team?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 05/29/10 10:07 AM
|
|
I wish I could find the threads where you repeatedly attacked several of us calling our "views" racist! You suddenly don't recall that? Wasn't that what Ollie North said during his trial repeatedly? Telling me my history was wrong and incorrect on another thread? Please... There is debate, and there is fallacious attacks. You do not have to come out and say something blatantly for it to be an insult. Time and time again your refutations were always four or less sentences. When you did post your "Proof" several of us offered counters to your paraphrasing and we still are wrong. I am only allowed to go back 25 threads unfortunately and boy I could find a lot in them! I wonder how many others share my opinion about this dilemma! Wrong is wrong. Sorry if you don't like it. And again you are wrong. You cannot prove I insulted you or anyone else because I didn't. A person of few words can be right also... 
I have been reported for just putting up a laughing emoticon to someone's post, so you can bet if I insulted anyone I would be in trouble. There are some real crybabies on this site. I measure my responses carefully. More carefully than many. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Sat 05/29/10 10:14 AM
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... It already is going there, I heard it this morning. Yea!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... It already is going there, I heard it this morning. Yea!!! It may be sent there, but SCOTUS won't accept it. If they accepted it and then found out it was 'unconstitutional' (a word people opposed to this law love to use in association with it), then they would also need to classify existing FEDERAL law (upon which AZ law is modeled) as 'unconstitutional' ... that ain't gonna happen, 'cuz the Feds are doing such a good job ignoring its existence that it's not a problem - it's almost as if it doesn't exist. It is, therefore, a non-issue. See, this is called 'analysis' - it's different from 'knee-jerk emotionalism' ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... It already is going there, I heard it this morning. Yea!!! It may be sent there, but SCOTUS won't accept it. If they accepted it and then found out it was 'unconstitutional' (a word people opposed to this law love to use in association with it), then they would also need to classify existing FEDERAL law (upon which AZ law is modeled) as 'unconstitutional' ... that ain't gonna happen, 'cuz the Feds are doing such a good job ignoring its existence that it's not a problem - it's almost as if it doesn't exist. It is, therefore, a non-issue. See, this is called 'analysis' - it's different from 'knee-jerk emotionalism' ... Knee jerk emotionalism like you? Supreme Court asked to review Arizona employer sanctions law 101 comments by JJ Hensley - May. 29, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review Arizona's employer-sanctions law, and a decision could have a ripple effect on similar laws across the country as well as on the state's controversial new immigration law. The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The federal agency recommended the Supreme Court consider whether the 2-year-old employer-sanctions law is unconstitutional. It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. The court will likely make a decision about taking on the case before a summer recess and hear it in the fall, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert. A decision would likely come sometime next spring. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/28/20100528arizona-employer-sanctions-supreme-court.html#ixzz0pLCh3JKb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Sat 05/29/10 10:43 AM
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... It already is going there, I heard it this morning. Yea!!! It may be sent there, but SCOTUS won't accept it. If they accepted it and then found out it was 'unconstitutional' (a word people opposed to this law love to use in association with it), then they would also need to classify existing FEDERAL law (upon which AZ law is modeled) as 'unconstitutional' ... that ain't gonna happen, 'cuz the Feds are doing such a good job ignoring its existence that it's not a problem - it's almost as if it doesn't exist. It is, therefore, a non-issue. See, this is called 'analysis' - it's different from 'knee-jerk emotionalism' ... Knee jerk emotionalism like you? Supreme Court asked to review Arizona employer sanctions law 101 comments by JJ Hensley - May. 29, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review Arizona's employer-sanctions law, and a decision could have a ripple effect on similar laws across the country as well as on the state's controversial new immigration law. The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The federal agency recommended the Supreme Court consider whether the 2-year-old employer-sanctions law is unconstitutional. It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. The court will likely make a decision about taking on the case before a summer recess and hear it in the fall, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert. A decision would likely come sometime next spring. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/28/20100528arizona-employer-sanctions-supreme-court.html#ixzz0pLCh3JKb " ... The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. ... " Operative words: "SHOULD CONSIDER" ... Analysis trumps emotionalism. Besides, this is a DIFFERENT law ... confused ... ? This is just TOO easy ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... It already is going there, I heard it this morning. Yea!!! It may be sent there, but SCOTUS won't accept it. If they accepted it and then found out it was 'unconstitutional' (a word people opposed to this law love to use in association with it), then they would also need to classify existing FEDERAL law (upon which AZ law is modeled) as 'unconstitutional' ... that ain't gonna happen, 'cuz the Feds are doing such a good job ignoring its existence that it's not a problem - it's almost as if it doesn't exist. It is, therefore, a non-issue. See, this is called 'analysis' - it's different from 'knee-jerk emotionalism' ... Knee jerk emotionalism like you? Supreme Court asked to review Arizona employer sanctions law 101 comments by JJ Hensley - May. 29, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review Arizona's employer-sanctions law, and a decision could have a ripple effect on similar laws across the country as well as on the state's controversial new immigration law. The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The federal agency recommended the Supreme Court consider whether the 2-year-old employer-sanctions law is unconstitutional. It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. The court will likely make a decision about taking on the case before a summer recess and hear it in the fall, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert. A decision would likely come sometime next spring. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/28/20100528arizona-employer-sanctions-supreme-court.html#ixzz0pLCh3JKb " ... The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. ... " Operative words: "SHOULD CONSIDER" ... Analysis trumps emotionalism. Besides, this is a DIFFERENT law ... confused ... ? This is just TOO easy ... Read down the operative words are "It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the Arizona law was more racist and is less racist but it still racist, it is a problem for anyone who believes in human equality vs racism and prejudice, like me. One of these days, you might actually get around to actually READING the law and discovering that it's modeled on the FEDERAL law - you know, the one the FEDERAL 'government' (your boiz) won't enforce, making it MANDATORY for AZ and every other state to do what the FEDERAL 'government' REFUSES to do ... see, this is something known as 'State's Rights' ... it also encompasses things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability', but this is enough for one day's thoughts ... don't want to overload your ... ummm ... 'system' - such as it may be ... I have read it and reread it after the changes. So I do know what I am talking about. The Supreme court will decide if it is a State right and will review it for the problems in it. I am glad of this. It's not gonna GO to SCOTUS ... it's almost word-for-word EXISTING FEDERAL LAW ... what's so difficult to understand about that? It's OVER ... just accept that and you won't be so tense ... It already is going there, I heard it this morning. Yea!!! It may be sent there, but SCOTUS won't accept it. If they accepted it and then found out it was 'unconstitutional' (a word people opposed to this law love to use in association with it), then they would also need to classify existing FEDERAL law (upon which AZ law is modeled) as 'unconstitutional' ... that ain't gonna happen, 'cuz the Feds are doing such a good job ignoring its existence that it's not a problem - it's almost as if it doesn't exist. It is, therefore, a non-issue. See, this is called 'analysis' - it's different from 'knee-jerk emotionalism' ... Knee jerk emotionalism like you? Supreme Court asked to review Arizona employer sanctions law 101 comments by JJ Hensley - May. 29, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review Arizona's employer-sanctions law, and a decision could have a ripple effect on similar laws across the country as well as on the state's controversial new immigration law. The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The federal agency recommended the Supreme Court consider whether the 2-year-old employer-sanctions law is unconstitutional. It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. The court will likely make a decision about taking on the case before a summer recess and hear it in the fall, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert. A decision would likely come sometime next spring. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/28/20100528arizona-employer-sanctions-supreme-court.html#ixzz0pLCh3JKb " ... The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. ... " Operative words: "SHOULD CONSIDER" ... Analysis trumps emotionalism. Besides, this is a DIFFERENT law ... confused ... ? This is just TOO easy ... Read down the operative words are "It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. " Like I said ... it's TOO EASY ... time now for a nap - all that laffin' has made me tired ... and you're STILL referring to the WRONG LAW as your 'example' ... it is to laff ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is where the moderators will step in now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Sat 05/29/10 12:58 PM
|
|
....What I think is probably a lot different than what I have read here beside the usual name calling games, slurs, stereotyping typical to our mingle "analysts" etc..
I think the border issue has been an issue a lot longer than the last 2 years..so anyone who claims that it has something to do with "liberals" or Obama is very ignorant. It's been a problem under Bush (who didn't do squat about it) and under Clinton so let's just clear off and say it doesn't matter which political party is in control, the borders remained an unsolved problem. Is it mis-allocation of funds? Is it carelessness? Is there something else to it? I don't know. But anyone who claims that the problem is somehow can be connected to a certain party or a political ideology now or the one before, has probably less memory than a goldfish, which doesn't even remember what happened 20 minutes ago, let alone 3-5 or 10 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am posting a general warning here. The next time will be warnings. Please read the following rule:
1) Do not attack/slam/insult others. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning! This applies to many in here, so far. Keep it a civil debate. Kim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....What I think is probably a lot different than what I have read here beside the usual name calling games, slurs, stereotyping typical to our mingle "analysts" etc.. I think the border issue has been an issue a lot longer than the last 2 years..so anyone who claims that it has something to do with "liberals" or Obama is very ignorant. It's been a problem under Bush (who didn't do squat about it) and under Clinton so let's just clear off and say it doesn't matter which political party is in control, the borders remained an unsolved problem. Is it mis-allocation of funds? Is it carelessness? Is there something else to it? I don't know. But anyone who claims that the problem is somehow can be connected to a certain party or a political ideology now or the one before, has probably less memory than a goldfish, which doesn't even remember what happened 20 minutes ago, let alone 3-5 or 10 years ago. I will be the first to say this is a brilliant observation! First and foremost illegal immigration has been a problem after the Regan Years! only now is the problem getting so acute that people are starting to really take notice. Again Illegal immigration has nothing to do with any race per say BECAUSE ANYONE HERE ILLEGALLY NO MATTER WHAT RACE, CREED, OR RELIGION, IS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IS A CRIMINAL! PERIOD! Big Business uses media campaigns to pull at people's heartstrings and they use organizations (non profit (COUGH COUGH!)) to lobby for policies that allow them a cheap exploitable work force within America. AS long as the law under the auspices of the current administration is willing to turn a blind eye to the presence of illegal aliens big business gets what it wants. Ultimately Agriculture is the wost culprit of all! Smaller farms cannot compete with larger subsidized farms and that practice has to end! Our government has created this cycle under the instigation of big business. It is estimated that 12,000,000 illegal immigrants live in Los Angeles alone and that spans a population of Asians, Hispanics, and some Africans as well as Caribbean Sea and South Americans and Europeans. That is 12,000,000 million too many people here! There is a huge list of businesses who support illegal immigration! WHY? They can again get a easily exploitable work force. As long as popular opinion was held captive "by the plight of the poor" it was easy for a lot of people to turn a blind eye but once the severity of the situation is becoming evident now people want action. Now that everyone here in America are becoming poor now we are seeing the BS and the Liberal Media spin for what it is. A bunch of forcefully imposed 'feel's good politics' for a select few while the rest of us have to live in the nightmare they create for us and they profit from it all. It is the same thing as most of us being peasants living in the squalor surrounding the castle the king and his select few live in. As long as the problems are not in their castle what do they care about the rest of us living in the cold outside??? Also my apologies for my participation in the sanctioned posts! My tolerance levels are being tested pretty harshly but thankfully you made it clear that no one's conduct is being tolerated including mine! I would just like to qualify that an insult is an insult whether it is tended directly or thorough well placed insinuations! Blanket character judgments are also just as insulting. Some members here need to learn they are not fooling anyone with their snippy little comments. I got spanked like everyone else did! Now I am going to go enjoy my time out. Sorry about my part in this again Kim. I should have know better! I still keep getting wet trying to walk on water damn it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....What I think is probably a lot different than what I have read here beside the usual name calling games, slurs, stereotyping typical to our mingle "analysts" etc.. I think the border issue has been an issue a lot longer than the last 2 years..so anyone who claims that it has something to do with "liberals" or Obama is very ignorant. It's been a problem under Bush (who didn't do squat about it) and under Clinton so let's just clear off and say it doesn't matter which political party is in control, the borders remained an unsolved problem. Is it mis-allocation of funds? Is it carelessness? Is there something else to it? I don't know. But anyone who claims that the problem is somehow can be connected to a certain party or a political ideology now or the one before, has probably less memory than a goldfish, which doesn't even remember what happened 20 minutes ago, let alone 3-5 or 10 years ago. I will be the first to say this is a brilliant observation! First and foremost illegal immigration has been a problem after the Regan Years! only now is the problem getting so acute that people are starting to really take notice. Again Illegal immigration has nothing to do with any race per say BECAUSE ANYONE HERE ILLEGALLY NO MATTER WHAT RACE, CREED, OR RELIGION, IS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IS A CRIMINAL! PERIOD! Big Business uses media campaigns to pull at people's heartstrings and they use organizations (non profit (COUGH COUGH!)) to lobby for policies that allow them a cheap exploitable work force within America. AS long as the law under the auspices of the current administration is willing to turn a blind eye to the presence of illegal aliens big business gets what it wants. Ultimately Agriculture is the wost culprit of all! Smaller farms cannot compete with larger subsidized farms and that practice has to end! Our government has created this cycle under the instigation of big business. It is estimated that 12,000,000 illegal immigrants live in Los Angeles alone and that spans a population of Asians, Hispanics, and some Africans as well as Caribbean Sea and South Americans and Europeans. That is 12,000,000 million too many people here! There is a huge list of businesses who support illegal immigration! WHY? They can again get a easily exploitable work force. As long as popular opinion was held captive "by the plight of the poor" it was easy for a lot of people to turn a blind eye but once the severity of the situation is becoming evident now people want action. Now that everyone here in America are becoming poor now we are seeing the BS and the Liberal Media spin for what it is. A bunch of forcefully imposed 'feel's good politics' for a select few while the rest of us have to live in the nightmare they create for us and they profit from it all. It is the same thing as most of us being peasants living in the squalor surrounding the castle the king and his select few live in. As long as the problems are not in their castle what do they care about the rest of us living in the cold outside??? Also my apologies for my participation in the sanctioned posts! My tolerance levels are being tested pretty harshly but thankfully you made it clear that no one's conduct is being tolerated including mine! I would just like to qualify that an insult is an insult whether it is tended directly or thorough well placed insinuations! Blanket character judgments are also just as insulting. Some members here need to learn they are not fooling anyone with their snippy little comments. I got spanked like everyone else did! Now I am going to go enjoy my time out. Sorry about my part in this again Kim. I should have know better! I still keep getting wet trying to walk on water damn it! Hear, Hear, Andy! Any Pro-Illegal is Anti-Legal and Anti-American! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, Hear, Andy! Any Pro-Illegal is Anti-Legal and Anti-American!
That is entirely not true. But Arizona's controversial law came out of desperation, and it is certainly due to inaction of Washington and keep sweeping it under the carpet for decades. Basically, when the situation goes desperate (regardless of what) that's when you see sudden radical acts done or policies. Not sure who said it, one of the founding fathers or a president: "When peaceful resolution is not allowed, violent revolution is inevitable". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, Hear, Andy! Any Pro-Illegal is Anti-Legal and Anti-American!
That is entirely not true. But Arizona's controversial law came out of desperation, and it is certainly due to inaction of Washington and keep sweeping it under the carpet for decades. Basically, when the situation goes desperate (regardless of what) that's when you see sudden radical acts done or policies. Not sure who said it, one of the founding fathers or a president: "When peaceful resolution is not allowed, violent revolution is inevitable". JFK said that! |
|
|
|
|
