See other Immigration Articles
Title: Senate Blocks Bill for Illegal Immigrant Students
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19immig.html
Published: Dec 18, 2010
Author: DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Post Date: 2010-12-18 13:19:42 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 1370
Comments: 162
Senate Blocks Bill for Illegal Immigrant Students By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN Published: December 18, 2010 The Senate on Saturday blocked a bill that would create a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrant students who came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check. The vote, 55-41 in favor of the bill, effectively kills the measure for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain. -Snip
Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-66) not displayed.
.
.
.
#67. To: Red Jones (#55)
I guess I should be a mind-numbed stupid robot and believe whatever garbage the media sells. What I clearly said before and I'm happy to reiterate is that Reagan sold us a bill that he said would STOP NEW IMMIGRANTS FROM COMING INTO THE US, which by your own commentary is agreed upon. What you fail to agree to is that this premise for passing the bill was A) BS and B) AN EPIC FAILURE. Furthermore, you claim that Reagan protested the bill which COMPLETELY contradicts his signing statement. And, to justify Reagan's signing you claim he had dementia when all other sources claim the onset was in 1989, not 1986. And yes, because of Reagan's 1986 amnesty MORE ILLEGALS CAME TO THE US in hopes of amnesty.......the numbers don't lie Red. Well, the least you could do is actually provide some documentation and verification for the claims you are making and you could actually discuss the documents and evidence I have presented to the CONTRARY. It's obvious to the lot of us that your "recall" lacks credibility and in lieu of any cogent argument you would rather sling insults and call others liars while you spit on your monitor and have a little tirade.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Yes, on the one hand I'm more forgiving, and at the same time less forgiving of certain things. Strange, but true. Seems I'm moving to a Black vs. White view, with no Gray in the middle.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.
Calm down. Ab is a nice lady and an honorable one. I realize you disagree with her viewpoint, and that's fine, that's part of what forums are about - exchanging viewpoints, but because someone does not agree does not make them a liar. It means they have a different take on it. You both have valid points so debate the point not personalities.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
A great close to this most interesting thread. Now to Ignore Thread feature. 'night.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.
Sir Lod... Your olde age is showing, olde man. hehehehehe I don't know about you guys, but my father had some firm ideas about how a gentleman behaves toward a lady. I think it would take an act of will for me to do much more than just be coldly polite even if a woman is being an absolute bitch.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Rest well good sir.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
The wall street journal described reagan's position Only a liar paints it different. by disputing my version you have called me a liar, and you did it with a mocking attitude that was rude. Post the speech content, your recall lacks credibility. Then, by all means, post the WSJ recap for the lot of us. Oh, really? I painted Reagan's SIGNING STATEMENT. Was he a liar? Go to the link I provided and read the ENTIRE document that details Reagan's position on EVERY ASPECT OF THE BILL. How can I lie about REAGAN'S SIGNING STATEMENT? It is what it is. He said it. He signed it. lol......your recall has proven again and again and again to lack credibility. Do I call you a liar because of this? No. But while you call other posters on fuzzy memory I simply have taken you to the mat for your own with documentation BY REAGAN that proves you are wrong. You want to talk about rude after you called me a liar?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
what abraxas said in 32 was mocking and ridicule. and it was also a lie. Reagan was not the one who made the legislation that let the illegals come. She said that Reagan said the legislation would stop illegals. the truth is completely the opposite. reagan came on tv, he said the legislation was very seriously flawed and that it neglected to stop illegals. he said that some were saying that it would, but that this was not true. he said this right on national tv. I can't help it if abraxas buys the propaganda. I was not the one who started the rudeness. i just refuse to tolerate it. then abraxas put up these 1'st 2 paragraphs of a signing statement that were completely irrelevant to the question. Reagan was far from perfect, but he was a legitimate American leader with sentiment for our country. People who slander him because they believe fables sold by an anti-American clique dominating our media I don't have much patience for. Especially when they go out of their way to be rude and insulting to me. and that is how I view #32. People here are making the argument that it is impossible for the US government to stop employers from hiring illegals. She said that Reagan tried and failed, that is a lie. the US government has never tried to systematically penalize employers for hiring illegals. You are liars to say otherwise.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
That is very true, ones views of others does change with age, tolerance changes, forgiveness is easier, but there is a line determined by upbringing that cannot be crossed. I will say this, with age, many things are better understood, good or bad, one sees with more clarity. My one advantage in life was being born and raised on the wrong side of the tracks and with no education. Being thus, one always has a more realistic view of life than others.
Red... Forget the rhetoric, apologize to the lady, its easy, try it. Raise your stature here among men.
In her favor I do have to say it was witty. I wouldn't call it mocking. No, rather more it was sarcastic. Not that I have ever done such. No, not me. I read it as more of challenge than really an assault. If she wanted to be nasty she's quite capable of it, but she was just having fun albeit at your expense. So, just take it with a thick skin and apply Judo. Being polite does not require being a pushover.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
I can't take anything you say seriously. the media sells you on a false story and you want to blame me for not being sold the same. The 2 paragraphs you put up had nothing to do with the discussion. You've been dealing with me in bad faith. It is likely that it would be very difficult to find on the internet a speech made by reagan in 1986. or impossible. yet you demand that I do this just because you are an ignoramus with your feelings hurt over me exposing the fact that you were sold lies. the media sold a story-line on this issue - that somehow our government tried to stop illegals from coming and by magic cannot succeed. No, they never tried. I am an eye-witness to that history. who you going to believe, me or that television? big decision. I really don't care what you believe. but you should be polite to others. I do not believe you met that standard in 32 if you look at the context of the situation. If you don't believe me, then say so without rudeness and indignation or insults. If you treat me that way, then I will treat you that way - which I have done.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
and all I did was throw it back in kind whatever it was.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
Oh really? The main crux of the legislation is EMPLOYMENT and ensuring there is no discrimination of illegals. THE BILL ENSURED NO ENFORCEMENT IN HIRING PRACTICES. Why don't you read it, Red? Here are the following paragraphs detailed in his signing statement: Section 102(a) of the bill adds section 274B to the Immigration and Nationality Act. This new section relates to certain kinds of discrimination in connection with employment in the United States. Section 274B(a) provides that it is an ``unfair immigration-related employment practice'' to ``discriminate against'' any individual in hiring, recruitment or referral for a fee, or discharging from employment ``because of'' such individual's national origin or -- if such individual is a United States citizen or an alien who is a lawful permanent resident, refugee admitted under INA section 207, or asylee granted asylum under section 208, and who has taken certain steps evidencing an intent to become a United States citizen -- because of such individual's citizenship status. Employers of fewer than four employees are expressly exempted from coverage. Discrimination against an ``unauthorized alien,'' as defined in section 274A(h)(3), is also not covered. Other exceptions include cases of discrimination because of national origin that are covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on citizenship status when lawfully required under government authority, and discrimination in favor of a United States citizen over an alien if the citizen is at least ``equally qualified.'' The major purpose of section 274B is to reduce the possibility that employer sanctions will result in increased national origin and alienage discrimination and to provide a remedy if employer sanctions enforcement does have this result. Accordingly, subsection (k) provides that the section will not apply to any discrimination that takes place after a repeal of employer sanctions if this should occur. In the light of this major purpose, the Special Counsel should exercise the discretion provided under subsection (d)(1) so as to limit the investigations conducted on his own initiative to cases involving discrimination apparently caused by an employer's fear of liability under the employer sanctions program. I understand section 274B to require a ``discriminatory intent'' standard of proof: The party bringing the action must show that in the decisionmaking process the defendant's action was motivated by one of the prohibited criteria. Thus, it would be improper to use the ``disparate impact'' theory of recovery, which was developed under paragraph (2) of section 703(a) of title VII, in a line of Supreme Court cases over the last 15 years. This paragraph of title VII does not have a counterpart in section 274B. Section 274B tracks only the language of paragraph (1) of section 703(a), the basis of the ``disparate treatment'' (discriminatory intent) theory of recovery under title VII. Moreover, paragraph (d)(2) refers to ``knowing an intentional discrimination'' and ``a pattern or practice of discriminatory activity.'' The meaning of the former phrase is self-evident, while the latter is taken from the Supreme Court's disparate treatment jurisprudence and thus includes the requirement of a discriminatory intent. Thus, a facially neutral employee selection practice that is employed without discriminatory intent will be permissible under the provisions of section 274B. For example, the section does not preclude a requirement of English language skill or a minimum score on an aptitude test even if the employer cannot show a ``manifest relationship'' to the job in question or that the requirement is a ``bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise,'' so long as the practice is not a guise used to discriminate on account of national origin or citizenship status. Indeed, unless the plaintiff presents evidence that the employer has intentionally discriminated on proscribed grounds, the employer need not offer any explanation for his employee selection procedures. Section 274B(c) provides that the President shall appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices within the Justice Department, to serve for a term of 4 years. I understand this subsection to provide that the Special Counsel shall serve at the pleasure and with the policy guidance of the President, but for no longer than for a 4-year term (subject to reappointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate). In accordance with the provisions of section 274B(h) and (j)(4), a requirement to pay attorneys' fees may be imposed against nonprevailing parties -- including alleged victims or persons who file on their behalf as well as employers -- if claims or defenses are made that do not have a reasonable foundation in both law and fact. The same standard for the imposing of attorneys' fees applies to all nonprevailing parties. It is therefore expected that prevailing defendants would recover attorneys' fees in all cases for which this standard is satisfied, not merely in cases where the claim of the victim or person filing on their behalf is found to be vexatious or frivolous. The provisions of new INA section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States. New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if ``likely to become [a] public charge [ ].'' This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period. New INA section 245A(a)(3) requires that an applicant for legalization establish that he has been ``continuously physically present in the United States since the date of the enactment'' but states that ``brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States'' will not be considered a break in the required continuous physical presence. To the extent that the INS has made available a procedure by which aliens can obtain permission to depart and reenter the United States after a brief, casual, and innocent absence by establishing a prima facie case of eligibility for adjustment of status under this section, I understand section 245A(a)(3) to require that an unauthorized departure and illegal reentry will constitute a break in ``continuous physical presence.'' New INA section 210(d), added by section 302(a) of the bill, provides that an alien who is ``apprehended'' before or during the application period for adjustment of status for certain ``special agricultural workers,'' may not under certain circumstances related to the establishment of a nonfrivolous case of eligibility for such adjustment of status be excluded or deported. I understand this subsection not to authorize any alien to apply for admission to or to be admitted to the United States in order to apply for adjustment of status under this section. Aliens outside the United States may apply for adjustment of status under this section at an appropriate consular office outside the United States pursuant to the procedures established by the Attorney General, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, as provided in section 210(b)(1)(B). Section 304 of the bill establishes the Commission on Agricultural Workers, half of whose 12 members are appointed by the executive branch and half by the legislative branch. This hybrid Commission is not consistent with constitutional separation of powers. However, the Commission's role will be entirely advisory. Section 304(g) provides that upon request of the Commission's Chairman, the head of ``any department or agency of the United States'' must supply ``information necessary to enable it to carry out [the] section.'' Although I expect that the executive branch will cooperate closely with the Commission, its access to executive branch information will be limited in accordance with established principles of law, including the constitutional separation of powers. Section 601 establishes a Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development, all of whose members are appointed by the legislative branch. Section 601(d)(1) states that the access to executive branch information required under section 304(g) must be provided to this Commission also. Accordingly, the comments of the preceding paragraph are appropriate here as well. New INA section 274A(a)(5) provides that a person or entity shall be deemed in compliance with the employment verification system in the case of an individual who is referred for employment by a State employment agency if that person or entity retains documentation of such referral certifying that the agency complied with the verification system with respect to the individual referred. I understand this provision not to mandate State employment agencies to issue referral documents certifying compliance with the verification system or to impose any additional affirmative duty or obligation on the offices or personnel of such agencies. Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship. Note: S. 1200, approved November 6, was assigned Public Law No. 99 - 603.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
I would tend to agree with your point, however ab's got a valid point too. The President does have the power of the Veto.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
"Noun 1. liar - a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly prevaricator beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true false witness, perjurer - a person who deliberately gives false testimony fabricator, fibber, storyteller - someone who tells lies
Here's a link to MOST of Reagan's speeches: Took me two seconds to locate.........
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
cyni, you said I was a free-loader and a side-liner. You fought in America's wars. i have not done so. And I am sincere in saying that I will not do so until the foreigners invade here - regardless of any draft or police action against me. that is the only time I will fight - when they invade us. you mocked my sincerity and called me a free-loader. Forgive me for telling you, but I can't really take your requests seriously. Our government has made no attempt to keep the illegals out. reagan warned us. He was the only one who did. I'll speak the truth for the truth's sake. too bad if you don't like it.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
What was the date, please?
congratulations. maybe you could look up the speech and see what he said. rather than make accusations you know nothing about. and I repeat again, it is not necessarilly true that you found an accurate copy of all reagan's speeches. but if you did, then you can easily look at them. Why don't you. then you can share it with me. rather than making accusations out of ignorance.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
in 1986 reagan came on tv to explain his signing of the immigration reform bill. In that speech he laid out the flaws of that legislation - that it did not penalzie employers for hiring illegals. he said the idea of giving amnesty and stopping new illegals was good. he said that the legislation failed to carry through and actually stop the new ones. He strongly recommended that legislation be passed to correct this. yet he still signed the legislation. how many times do I have to repeat the very same thing?
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
Okay, I was just trying to help.
Above is Reagan promoting what he deemed necessary in regards to border security, immigration and amnesty at the POTUS debate......but he didn't produce a bill that did what he claimed was necessary. Oddly enough, he made three separate agenda speeches in 1986, beyond the State of the Nation.......but not one specifically about Amnesty. Imagine that? Perhaps this is because his SIGNING STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL, Red. Why should I "share" with you Red? I'm the only one who has contributed ANY documentation regarding this issue. All you have is "fuzzy memories" that lack credibility and have already been proven to be in err. You are outright proven wrong and your only retaliation is insults, innuendo, and tirades fit for a sandbox.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Red... Your words, you did not serve, would not serve. That is a red flag to anyone that DID SERVE. We endured millions of free riders and side liners, WE PAID WITH OUR LIVES AND BLOOD. It is not a bitter memory Red, it is a factual memory, there were untold free riders. Your words, you did not serve, would not serve, yet chances are you participated in this government that took the lives of a brother and untold friends. Tell that to any one that did their turn, anyone, you will get and deserve the same response.
On November 6, 1986, he issued the signing statement for the legislation which I have already posted in its entirety. However, Red completely IGNORES the context while relying on his fuzzy memory to refute what Reagan plainly stated.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Prune juice or orange juice. Muselix or Raisin Bran. Decisions, decisions.... :-o
__________________________________________________________ Lod aint that olde...yet. hehehehehehe
Just trying to help him along ;-)
__________________________________________________________ Dont let this get around but Mrs. Lod is trying to wean Lod off the gin bottle to the prune juice. hehehehehehe
"I supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those that have put down roots and lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally." Well, there are you then. There ain't much more to say.
I think part of the reaction against it is that people are just fed up. They are tired of the government not enforcing the border, and they are tired of supporting the horde. I also believe that the attitude of a lot of people was that this was the "Camel's nose". I have sympathy for the kids who have adapted and become part of this culture and feel like this is their home - that they identify with America not Mexico. I think I commented early on that an accomodation could be made, but this wasn't it.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Red's one of the good guys. So are many others that didn't or don't serve the evil elite.
we never did have a police state type border. it has always been an open border. the problem is not the border. the problem is failure to audit employers' payrolls and punish them for hiring illegals as well as make it very easy for them to screen out illegals. the e-verify system today has fallen apart in that its information is not reliable. a person can pass e-verify and still be an illegal immigrant. that happens with either sabotage or neglect of raw data. and government controls that database. ronald reagan was opposed to building a wall on the border. he said it was offensive.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
the people who want to spend a fortune on the border are the same people who want to bring in guest workers. it is a stupid thing to think that they are trying to protect us from illegals. that is what they sell us on tv. in America a few years ago there used to be local talk-radio people in Las Vegas, Phoenix & Texas who each were 100% devoted to talking about illegals. all that talk and useless too because they didn't bother to tell the people that the employers need to be punished and were not being punished for hiring illegals. you don't get all those talk radio shows focusing like that unless the people who rule are behind it. a whole industry built up to offend the new immigrants and divide us up, at the same time a purposely useless movement that can't pull its own head out of its own asshole. they advocate voting for politicians who want to bring in guest workers. and fool us into spending a ton of money on border police/walls.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
you're an idiot. articles from back then are not on the net. and you're the one that wants to see the info, I've already seen it. if you're asking me to verbally explain what the WSJ said about it back then, I've already done that like 10 times including in this thread. I skimmed through what you said were first 2 paragraphs of signing statement. it was not speaking the things I saw in his speech to the nation on that subject. I told you twice, the man had dementia. You can't tolerate simple reality. and you can't be polite to people. You're the one who first called me a liar by mocking and ridiculing my story-line in favor of the propaganda line that our mass media sells us. and you don't have the integrity even try to go look for the info yourself. and I've explained to you twice that this info may not be available as it does go against the story- line we're supposed to believe. its not worth taking you seriously because your mind doesn't function and you're disrespectful.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
I looked again at that signing statement. so reagan said that the law had provisions for employer sanctions. I've explained to you that I've witnessed that employers routinely hire illegals without any penalty, that they are not afraid of hiring illegals, that they know how to do it and it does not bother them. There are no sanctions of significance and there never were. there is no real effort to stop illegals from coming here. that is reality. It doesn't matter what reagan's signing statement says. you're an idiot. the man characterizes the law falsely and you choose to believe that his false characterization is true. the man had dementia. he was easily influenced by people around him. He gave a speech saying that we needed to modify the law to penalize employers. I saw the speech. I also read in the wall street journal how it went. and I have shared that with you many times. you believe the story told by those who rule, that somehow we tried our best to keep illegals out and it didn't work. we never even tried. according to some idiot jerk I'm to be ridiculed and mocked just for seeing the truth. No, I'll be rude and disrespectful to you in kind and I will call you a liar as you did to me. only difference is, you are the real liar if you follow the context of the situation. you simply want your comfortable cocoon where you can complain and throw mud at illegals without any effect. someone that upsets tha comfortable cocoon by telling you the truth you can't tolerate.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
free-loader is your description, not mine. in using that term to describe me you are making strong judgments about something you know nothing about. and you are not my judge.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
in that list of speeches there are 3 from 1986. but none on the subject we're talking of. if you want to call me a liar and believe the man on the tv you can. reagan came on tv before he signed that bill and told of is flaws and warned, just like I said. and the wall street journal explained it too, made quite clear that millions of illegals would come here. these sources are not available on the iternet. you can't find them, I can't find them. I told you that in the beginning when you first ridiculed me for not putting them up. the legislation has provisions in it that do provide for sanctions against employers. However, these provisions are ineffective and useless (purposely so). I know that is a huge intellectual problem for someone like you with a small bigoted mind. But it means that reagan's signing statement was technically true. it also does not contradict what he'd previously said that the law was very flawed and needed to be changed. as I said, in 1986 reagan was not normal. He had dementia and people around him were able to manipulate him. but reagan said what he said and you can call me a liar all you want. I have respect for Reagan's position, he gave us a solution that was good. Bush and the other republicans completely swept his solution away and have allowed the illegals in. The democrats have failed to efectively oppose the republicans who purposely let them in. that is historical fact, not my opinion. You choose to believe the story-line of the television propaganda rather than an eye-witness. and you mock and ridicule me for not going along with your garbage.
Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
Red... You call others liars, then refute your own words. By willfully stating you did not and will not serve, you placed yourself in a category of Americans that few care to entertain. The normal word is draft dodger or slacker. Both are intentionally demeaning. The terms I used are most descriptive, sideliners or free riders. For whatever reason, you refuse to serve. Usually it is religion, it does not make you a slacker, IT DOES MAKE YOU A FREE RIDER, AS YOU GET A PASS WHILE I AM OFF TO BLEED AND DIE. Conscientious Objector???? Those are called cowards. You brought up a subject that had NOTHING to do with calling someone a liar. A gentleman would have apologized , unless you care to be known otherwise. Once more Red, stop evading your own words, apologize as you should.
wud... If Red is one of the elite, there is not a problem. If he is one of the masses, there is a problem. He is a free rider, slacker, coward, side liner or whatever. Evil government or no, the masses ARE NEVER GIVEN A CHOICE. In an all out world war, right or wrong, such people cannot and will not be allowed to draw a pass. Refuse to serve, and you will pay a price, that is reality. I recall in WW2 when middle age men had no objections to the kids 18 being dragged off to war, then the age limit was raised up, age by age until men 39 years olde were being dragged away. Men to age 65 were forced to register for possible service, military or otherwise. My goodness, how their tune changed, let someone else serve not me. We have an evil government, no one gets a pass, no one, we all walk the walk, no free riders.
LOL What the *** **** are you talking about?
Comments (108 - 162) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou act like Reagan was the cause of the illegal immigrants coming
#68. To: Cynicom, 4 (#64)
#69. To: Red Jones, abraxas (#65)
#70. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#69)
You both have valid points so debate the point not personalities.
#71. To: Cynicom, Lod (#64)
We don't need beat-downs, we want the truth here.
#72. To: Lod (#70)
#73. To: Red Jones (#65)
I remember what he said.
#74. To: All (#65)
#75. To: Lod (#68)
Yes, on the one hand I'm more forgiving, and at the same time less forgiving of certain things.
#76. To: Red Jones, Abraxas, all (#74)
what abraxas said in 32 was mocking and ridicule. and it was also a lie.
#77. To: Red Jones, abraxas, all (#74)
#78. To: abraxas (#73)
#79. To: Original_Intent (#77)
I read it as more of challenge than really an assault
#80. To: Red Jones (#74)
She said that Reagan tried and failed, that is a lie. the US government has never tried to systematically penalize employers for hiring illegals. You are liars to say otherwise.
#81. To: Red Jones, abraxas (#74)
the US government has never tried to systematically penalize employers for hiring illegals. You are liars to say otherwise.
#82. To: Red Jones, All (#79)
#83. To: Red Jones (#78)
(Edited)
It is likely that it would be very difficult to find on the internet a speech made by reagan in 1986. or impossible. yet you demand that I do this just because you are an ignoramus with your feelings hurt over me exposing the fact that you were sold lies.
#84. To: Cynicom (#76)
#85. To: Red Jones, abraxas (#78)
It is likely that it would be very difficult to find on the internet a speech made by reagan in 1986. or impossible.
No Planes. Think about it. ................. Guaranteed Penetration (no it's not porn)
#86. To: abraxas (#83)
#87. To: wudidiz (#85)
#88. To: Red Jones (#87)
No Planes. Think about it. ................. Guaranteed Penetration (no it's not porn)
#89. To: Red Jones (#86)
#90. To: Red Jones (#84)
cyni, you said I was a free-loader and a side-liner.
#91. To: wudidiz, Red Jones (#85)
#92. To: Lod (#68)
Seems I'm moving to a Black vs. White view, with no Gray in the middle.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#93. To: X-15 (#92)
Prune juice or orange juice. Muselix or Raisin Bran. Decisions, decisions....
#94. To: Cynicom, Lod, The-Over-The-Hill-Gang (#93)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#95. To: X-15 (#94)
Just trying to help him along ;-)
#96. To: abraxas (#89)
#97. To: randge, abraxas (#96)
#98. To: Cynicom, abraxas, Red Jones (#90)
No Planes. Think about it. ................. Guaranteed Penetration (no it's not porn)
#99. To: Original_Intent (#97)
They are tired of the government not enforcing the border
#100. To: Original_Intent (#97)
#101. To: abraxas (#73)
Then, by all means, post the WSJ recap for the lot of us.
#102. To: abraxas (#73)
#103. To: Cynicom (#90)
#104. To: abraxas (#83)
#105. To: Red Jones, All (#103)
in using that term to describe me you are making strong judgments about something you know nothing about. and you are not my judge.
#106. To: wudidiz, All (#98)
Red's one of the good guys. So are many others that didn't or don't serve the evil elite.
#107. To: Cynicom (#106)
No Planes. Think about it. ................. Guaranteed Penetration (no it's not porn)
.
.
.
