Reply With QuoteI think I should post this in the sandbar. They should have fun with it and I'll get to watch the drama.
Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
I think I should post this in the sandbar. They should have fun with it and I'll get to watch the drama.
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
Businesses that employee illegal labor, come to mind
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
2 Main groups.
Businesses that want underpriced labor.
Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished underclass and de facto (seems to be my fancy phrase of the day) captive voting block of people who are dependent on various government programs.
2 Main groups.
Businesses that want underpriced labor.
Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished undrclass/captive voting block of people, who are dependent on various govenment programs.
"Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished undrclass/captive voting block of people"
ES this comment is pretty deep. You can't possibly beleive this.
We all are aware of your conservative beliefs, some of which I admire. This comment truly doesn't sound like ES the thinker.
Last time I checked, illegals couldn't vote.
"Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished undrclass/captive voting block of people"
Ultra: "ES this comment is pretty deep. You can't possibly beleive this."
ES: "Nevertheless I do."
Ultra: "We all are aware of your conservative beliefs, some of which I admire. This comment truly doesn't sound like ES the thinker."
ES: "Thats because I say with a lower kind of goofy voice."
Ultra: Last time I checked, illegals couldn't vote.
ES: "Yet they often do in states that don't require ID (like Ca).
Their offspring can.
The ones who recieved the Reagan Amnisty can.
The ones that would have recieved the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnisty no doubt could have once they cut in line (via "the path to citizenship") ahead of all of the legally sponsored and responsible people who have been waiting to go through the current legal process.
Besides, they are only part of the poverty picture, that the leadership of the left exploits."
.
Last time I checked, illegals couldn't vote.
And criminals can't own guns either right?? If an illegal has the sources to hijack a Social Security number and obtain a phony drivers license then by all means they can vote. And lets not forget about the anchor babies voting when they come of age.
Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Wrong. The birds...beaners I was referring to were the 10's of millions that are currently in mexico (mostly) that kennedy's amendment would have allowed to come here, just because their sneaky relatives had already successfully broken in.
Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Don't get me wrong Bush's treason was bad enough. But kennedy's amendment "for the sake of family unity" was FAR worse. For those who don't remember, that pos wanted to allow the mothers, fathers, brothers, kids etc. of the border-jumpers here now to come to OUR COUNTRY as well.
Who gives a damn who signed it or where originated. It became law in 1996 and it has reduced the size of the welfare roles. You guys see a Democrat's name in a post, in support of my prior comment, and you attack. You guys amaze me.
Are you really so closed minded as to believe that a Democrat has never done anything positive?
The law signed, under great protest, by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, which originated in the Republican congress, and had enough votes to override a Presidential Veto, etc.
How's that? Are you both happy.
Closed minded? Were it not for Republicans balking at the AMNESTY BILL the leftocrats would have rammed it down our throats.
You only admit clinton didn't really want to reform welfare AFTER someone pointed it out for you. If left unchallenged you'd likely have continued to list that as one of clinton's "accomplishments".
Name some demorat accomplishments in the area of national security, or border security, if you would.
Posting Permissions