rattsass Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Interesting thing, since my conversion. I noticed today several flies and other flying insects buzzing around my head. I was also accosted on the street by a pack of Jehovahs Witnesses. It's a good thing I have forsaken my silly conspiracy theory mind-set or I might read too much into these common daily occurrances. Do you other Obama supporters have problems with flying insects and people pleading to save your soul? Because if this is the way it is going to be, it is going to take some getting used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 rattsass . . what is our most vulnerable border? The Pacific... I mean seriously, you think any of those wankers in Cali, Ore, Wash have the gumption to stop anybody from coming in. Hell no, they just sit on their lazy asses and smoke pot, blow glass, make pottery and occasionally turn out a few good vintages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 The Pacific... I mean seriously, you think any of those wankers in Cali, Ore, Wash have the gumption to stop anybody from coming in. Hell no, they just sit on their lazy asses and smoke pot, blow glass, make pottery and occasionally turn out a few good vintages. They could catch some tasty waves from the wake of all those torpedo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 The Pacific... I mean seriously, you think any of those wankers in Cali, Ore, Wash have the gumption to stop anybody from coming in. Hell no, they just sit on their lazy asses and smoke pot, blow glass, make pottery and occasionally turn out a few good vintages. I am pretty sure the genius was looking for an answer about our northern border. Surely that border would be more vulnerable to an entry by a muslim scumbag, but the southern border is the one that allows the vast majority of illegals into this country. Those are the ones this discussion is about. With the financial condition of this country, especially that of the states closest to this border, we can not afford to continue to let all of these illegals into this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 While we may have a more secure border than we have in a while, it is still not secure, and that is arguable when you consider we are closing parks because of the danger of violent illegals. Many of us were hard on Shrub for not doing more, so it isn't like we are just picking on your guy. We are stepping it up a bit, because your guy is on record for wanting amnesty, and he has the congressional majorities to get and amnesty bill passed. There are two more reasons that this issue has gotten amped up as well. The criminals that are crossing the border are becoming more and more violent, and unemployment is higher than many of us have ever seen. Many of hammering on this issue every time it is brought up, due to the unemployment rate and the violence, it looks like we might actually be able to get something done. With regard to what secure is, I'd say a double fence all along the border, with video or other technology to alert us to attempted crossings, and enough agents to respond. I'd also say it involves kicking all illegals out of the country whenever and where ever they are found. We also need to get rid of the anchor baby laws. The only way I could come close to accepting amnesty for those already here is if we get rid of the anchor baby laws, and still then I have reservations because of the message it sends to those who may think they can come here and get amnesty in the future. Perch . . you DO realize that you are going AGINST THE CONSTITUTION with your "anchor baby" statement . . right? Your security about the border has more to do with drug violence than actual illegals coming in. Add in the 24 hour media cycle and it whips people into a frenzy. The amount of illegals has DECREASED, which is a good thing, right? I am all for securing the border FIRST, and enact laws that prevent illegals from getting jobs or obtaining shelter/benefits. Getting worked up about amnesty is just partisan bulldiaper dirt. Define what the nation wants as a "secure border". If it is Perch's second coming of the Berlin Wall, so be it. Fund it, build it, and staff it. While that is being accomplished, do everything you can to prevent providing "aid and comfort" to illegals, as well as drug reform to eliminate the violence from cartels smuggling across the border. Worry about amnesty/ whatever else we do about the illegals currently in the country later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I am pretty sure the genius was looking for an answer about our northern border. Surely that border would be more vulnerable to an entry by a muslim scumbag, but the southern border is the one that allows the vast majority of illegals into this country. Those are the ones this discussion is about. With the financial condition of this country, especially that of the states closest to this border, we can not afford to continue to let all of these illegals into this country. Absolutely not Zeke . . . but how much unpatrolled coastline do we have? I dont think that the Canadians are sneaking in, cause they tend to have a pretty good situation right now overall. The northern border is a spurious argument when 99% of illegals come through the southern border. You can build a great big wall across Mexico, but our coasts are pretty damn vulnerable . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 (edited) Perch . . you DO realize that you are going AGINST THE CONSTITUTION with your "anchor baby" statement . . right? How so? Please do explain. Before you do, though let me explain that I do not have a problem with citizenship for any child born in the US, my problem is with giving their parents citizenship, just because they were able to slip through our porous border and have a baby here. ETA: Apparently prior to the 1960's it wasn't unconstitutional. Edited June 24, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 You can build a great big wall across Mexico, but our coasts are pretty damn vulnerable . . . All the more reason to have a strong navy, air force, and coast guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 All the more reason to have a strong navy, air force, and coast guard. Arent you ripping the coast guard for doing safety inspections in the gulf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I have a serious problem with the fact that a baby, simply due to it being born here, can get immediate US citizenship... If that goes against the constitution so be it, these are different times than when that legislation was passed. That and I'm really only a strict constitutionalist on the first 10, the rest of it is crap... I mean, seriously, giving women the right of suffrage, direct election of senators, the federal income tax, TREASON!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Arent you ripping the coast guard for doing safety inspections in the gulf? I think that's me, you freaking commie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Arent you ripping the coast guard for doing safety inspections in the gulf? Yes, I was and stand by that. The two are completely separate issues. The Coast Guard could have easily done their inspections while the ships were in operation rather than delaying the containment effort. Somebody made a stupid decision, that is not to say I disapprove of the coast guard. When did you become so black and white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 How so? Please do explain. Before you do, though let me explain that I do not have a problem with citizenship for any child born in the US, my problem is with giving their parents citizenship, just because they were able to slip through our porous border and have a baby here. Ok. I misread your post. I thought you stated that you wanted to get rid of the anchor baby laws. which is generally used to reference the 14th amendment about children born in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yes, I was and stand by that. The two are completely separate issues. The Coast Guard could have easily done their inspections while the ships were in operation rather than delaying the containment effort. Somebody made a stupid decision, that is not to say I disapprove of the coast guard. When did you become so black and white? Not black and white, just clarifying which way you stand on these issues and all the loophole argumnets used to pin the tail on Obama . . . In one breath they are awesome, in the next they shouldnt be doing safety inspections, but somehow Obama is the one that personally said to do safety inspections . . . . Just trying to sift through the partisan blame game . . . . carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 I have a serious problem with the fact that a baby, simply due to it being born here, can get immediate US citizenship... If that goes against the constitution so be it, these are different times than when that legislation was passed. That and I'm really only a strict constitutionalist on the first 10, the rest of it is crap... I mean, seriously, giving women the right of suffrage, direct election of senators, the federal income tax, TREASON!!!!!! It wasn't The Constitution that gave alien children born her citizenship, it was the 14th amendment which was adopted in 1866, and it was not intended to give the children of illegal aliens citizenship, it was intended to give the slaves citizenship. BTW this is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, which means that it's ratification was coerced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 It wasn't The Constitution that gave alien children born her citizenship, it was the 14th amendment which was adopted in 1866, and it was not intended to give the children of illegal aliens citizenship, it was intended to give the slaves citizenship. BTW this is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, which means that it's ratification was coerced. Ummm, it was the 14th amendment to what, the constitution, ok, just wanted to clear that up... I know when it was adopted and I know the reason why it was adopted and I think I pretty clearly stated that I was only really in agreement w. the 1st 10 amendments, to what, the constitution or the Bill of Rights, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 This brings up a very good point, that I haven't thought of, that should be brought to the forefront if the Obama Administration persists in legal action against The State of Arizona. Why Isn't the Obama Administration Suing 'Sanctuary Cities'?The lawsuit against SB1070 has nothing to do with keeping immigration policy in federal hands. BY Peyton R. Miller June 23, 2010 11:29 AM The Justice Department is preparing a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, likely to be filed next week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American interviewer last week that the Obama administration opposes the law because “the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” The idea that the administration seeks to uphold federal sovereignty in matters pertaining to immigration is hard to swallow. U.S. law prohibits public universities from providing in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students, yet ten states currently allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. Numerous “sanctuary cities” deliberately subvert federal immigration policy by preventing local law enforcement and other officials from inquiring as to the immigration status of residents. Some have gone even further by providing undocumented immigrants with local forms of identification. President Obama immediately voiced opposition to the Arizona law, which enforces federal law at the state level, but has made no rhetorical or legal challenge to state laws that work against federal immigration policy. Such pro-illegal immigrant practices existed well before January 2009, but Obama did not campaign on the need to abolish them for the sake of restoring immigration policy to the federal domain. In fact, when asked in a presidential debate whether he would “allow [sanctuary] cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants,” he refused to condemn sanctuary cities, commenting only briefly on the need for “comprehensive immigration reform.” The notion that immigration policy should be handled at the federal level is a legitimate one, but it is difficult for the Obama administration to oppose Arizona’s law on these grounds since it has not lifted a finger in opposition to state-level policies that favor illegal immigrants. A different agenda is at work here. Peyton R. Miller is the editor of the Harvard Salient and a Student Free Press Association Intern at THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 This brings up a very good point, that I haven't thought of, that should be brought to the forefront if the Obama Administration persists in legal action against The State of Arizona. I think it is very well stated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 This brings up a very good point, that I haven't thought of, that should be brought to the forefront if the Obama Administration persists in legal action against The State of Arizona. That is a very solid point, and one that deserves its own argument and discussion. Seriously. NOT seriously, It reminds me when I tell one of my kids to go do something (like go brush their teeth) and they respond "well THEY havent brushed their teeth yet!!" referring to their siblings. Perhaps reminiscent of the "liar, liar, pants on fire" strategy used by the prosecution in the Blagovich trial, or even a comparision to the "I'm rubber you are glue" defense by Oliver North . . . . I wish Arizona the best of luck with their defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I have a serious problem with the fact that a baby, simply due to it being born here, can get immediate US citizenship... If that goes against the constitution so be it, these are different times than when that legislation was passed. Gun control advocates say exactly the same thing. Be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Gun control advocates say exactly the same thing. Be careful what you wish for. very good point. with that said - I have a big issue with the amendment as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Gun control advocates say exactly the same thing. Be careful what you wish for. Yeah, but I'm full of contradictions when it comes to supporting my beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yeah, but I'm full of contradictions when it comes to supporting my beliefs. When did you become a liberal in the modern sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 When did you become a liberal in the modern sense? After I stopped hating and truly learned to love Obama and all the good that he has done for our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 When did you become a liberal in the modern sense? Or a Republican in the modern sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts