Pretty clear what is happening there, part II

[Guest]

The invasion currently underway in Europe which has been underway in smaller numbers all over the world is another plan for out numbering those countries in which they choose to live.

Of course not 100%, but enough so as to have a significant muslim population tha will statistically include far more radicals than would have ever otherwise been in the country.

They do believe in making sure their flock as well as those they oppose hear their message. After all their best weapon is fear:

» Top Imam: Muslim Migrants Should Breed With Europeans to “Conquer Their Countries” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/top-iman-muslim-migrants-should-breed-with-europeans-to-conquer-their-countries/)

[Guest]

The invasion currently underway in Europe which has been underway in smaller numbers all over the world is another plan for out numbering those countries in which they choose to live.

Of course not 100%, but enough so as to have a significant muslim population tha will statistically include far more radicals than would have ever otherwise been in the country.

They do believe in making sure their flock as well as those they oppose hear their message. After all their best weapon is fear:

» Top Imam: Muslim Migrants Should Breed With Europeans to “Conquer Their Countries” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/top-iman-muslim-migrants-should-breed-with-europeans-to-conquer-their-countries/)

I am quite ready to become non-PC and make our country a Judeo-Christian or nothing country that allows us to ban any other religion or cult that encourages violence or non-American standards (which could be defined). Other religions could be tolerated on a case by case basis, but we would have the right to discourage or ban any that were not deemed appropriate to our way of living. Sounds harsh but we have become a nation way too tolerant of ideas and practices that the majority do not condone. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and laws and we should not modify this to allow exceptions that are against the nature of our founding.

I would also encourage all that wish to live in our country to learn the American English language so that they would be able to read and understand traffic signs, directions and warnings. If one wishes to be an American, then they should also wish to learn our ways and language. I do realize that for parts of our country, Spanish was the older language, but English has been established as the American language of choice, and should be dominant and preferred. Our schools should be taught in English and those that do not understand English should be required to first complete a mandatory English language course and pass an exam before being allowed to enroll in our public school system.

Any future citizen voters of our country should first have to successfully complete a civics course so that they will understand our election system as well as how our gov works. I am including natural born citizens in this requirement. Anyone that has previously voted will be given a grandfather clause allowing them to continue to participate in elections. It is very depressing to find out that many Americans do not even know who the Vice President is, or even a few of the founding presidents of our nation.

Impossible? Yes, I hear that all the time. It's supposed to be impossible to fix the illegal invasion problem too, but I have a very simple remedy. Prosecute anyone that hires an illegal and the jobs will dry up. They will then voluntarily go home. Any illegal convicted of a crime will be incarcerated if guilty of a felony and deported if a misdemeanor. If they return to our country and get caught, it will be an automatic felony and they will receive prison time.

The 14th amendment was not constructed with illegals in mind, so the automatic baby citizenship should not apply. The amendment states "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Sorry, but an illegal alien is not subject of the "jurisdiction thereof" and that's why they are deported when they are caught. So, technically a baby born of an illegal is not a citizen. I have no idea where anyone got the idea of automatically giving these kids citizenship. Trump is right, even if the liberal supreme court says otherwise.

[Guest]

I am quite ready to become non-PC and make our country a Judeo-Christian or nothing country that allows us to ban any other religion or cult that encourages violence or non-American standards (which could be defined). Other religions could be tolerated on a case by case basis, but we would have the right to discourage or ban any that were not deemed appropriate to our way of living. Sounds harsh but we have become a nation way too tolerant of ideas and practices that the majority do not condone. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and laws and we should not modify this to allow exceptions that are against the nature of our founding.

I would also encourage all that wish to live in our country to learn the American English language so that they would be able to read and understand traffic signs, directions and warnings. If one wishes to be an American, then they should also wish to learn our ways and language. I do realize that for parts of our country, Spanish was the older language, but English has been established as the American language of choice, and should be dominant and preferred. Our schools should be taught in English and those that do not understand English should be required to first complete a mandatory English language course and pass an exam before being allowed to enroll in our public school system.

Any future citizen voters of our country should first have to successfully complete a civics course so that they will understand our election system as well as how our gov works. I am including natural born citizens in this requirement. Anyone that has previously voted will be given a grandfather clause allowing them to continue to participate in elections. It is very depressing to find out that many Americans do not even know who the Vice President is, or even a few of the founding presidents of our nation.

Impossible? Yes, I hear that all the time. It's supposed to be impossible to fix the illegal invasion problem too, but I have a very simple remedy. Prosecute anyone that hires an illegal and the jobs will dry up. They will then voluntarily go home. Any illegal convicted of a crime will be incarcerated if guilty of a felony and deported if a misdemeanor. If they return to our country and get caught, it will be an automatic felony and they will receive prison time.

The 14th amendment was not constructed with illegals in mind, so the automatic baby citizenship should not apply. The amendment states "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Sorry, but an illegal alien is not subject of the "jurisdiction thereof" and that's why they are deported when they are caught. So, technically a baby born of an illegal is not a citizen. I have no idea where anyone got the idea of automatically giving these kids citizenship. Trump is right, even if the liberal supreme court says otherwise.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

We have to ask those in charge why is it OK to leave the southern border open with no controls what so ever?

Grandfather those here and let that be a separate issue.

Why can we not close the border and enforce the immigration laws currently on the books? It can or will only be done by non politicians.....hint.....hint!

[Guest]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights

It is pretty clear what is happening here. So, ignoring the Constitution is now the standard for not being politically correct.

Alabama tried strict immigration laws, and the farmers really suffered the consequences. They bitched to high heaven, and Alabama backed off. There are jobs that Americans do not want to do.

You want citizens to pass a test before they can vote. Some test like was administered in the South before the 60's civil right laws. How many jelly beans are in this 5 gallon jar give or take 5?

So, we should only apply the Constitution for laws that we like. All laws that we don't like are just suggestions, and not really laws.

[Guest]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights

It is pretty clear what is happening here. So, ignoring the Constitution is now the standard for not being politically correct.

Alabama tried strict immigration laws, and the farmers really suffered the consequences. They bitched to high heaven, and Alabama backed off. There are jobs that Americans do not want to do.

You want citizens to pass a test before they can vote. Some test like was administered in the South before the 60's civil right laws. How many jelly beans are in this 5 gallon jar give or take 5?

So, we should only apply the Constitution for laws that we like. All laws that we don't like are just suggestions, and not really laws.

EXCELLENT POST! :bigbow:

[Guest]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights

It is pretty clear what is happening here. So, ignoring the Constitution is now the standard for not being politically correct.

Alabama tried strict immigration laws, and the farmers really suffered the consequences. They bitched to high heaven, and Alabama backed off. There are jobs that Americans do not want to do.

You want citizens to pass a test before they can vote. Some test like was administered in the South before the 60's civil right laws. How many jelly beans are in this 5 gallon jar give or take 5?

So, we should only apply the Constitution for laws that we like. All laws that we don't like are just suggestions, and not really laws.

Typically extreme opposite view, from the "can't be done" clan.
We all know that the constitution has never been changed since it construction, right? Sure.

We also know that the founders did NOT make the constitution to have it perverted to every liberal cause. I am not suggesting mandating a religion. I said either blah blah or none. I also said that exceptions case by case. This is national security and the gov voids the constitution in national emergency situations.
Obama violates the law all the time, and disobeys the supreme court. Are you saying it's ok for him to do it because he is black, or is he held to the same standard as the rest of America?
What's wrong with stipulations on voting rights? Oh, I get it. It might "disenfranchise" the minority voter. Kind of like the voter ID myth that it would disenfranchise the minority voter. Amazing how much the left suddenly is concerned about the minority after history proves that Democrats have always been a hindrance to their freedom.
As far as the farmers are concerned, sooooo? If they can't hire anyone, it's because they won't pay enough. If they have to increase the cost of their product, but harvest it legally, then I'm all for it. A study was done a long time ago that suggested that if you got rid of all the illegal migrants, the cost to each American for groceries would increase by $8 per year. Now, it's been a while so we would have to adjust for inflation.
But, we are a country of laws. You contradict yourself in one comment. You talk about the 1st Amendment and then want to look the other way when it comes to illegals. That is really a problem in America, isn't it? One law is good because you like it, and the other law is bad because it might cost you.
No disrespect meant to you. I am just debating the issues with you. I respect your opinion and you are right about the Religion thing. One can only try though.

[Guest]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights

It is pretty clear what is happening here. So, ignoring the Constitution is now the standard for not being politically correct.

Alabama tried strict immigration laws, and the farmers really suffered the consequences. They bitched to high heaven, and Alabama backed off. There are jobs that Americans do not want to do.

You want citizens to pass a test before they can vote. Some test like was administered in the South before the 60's civil right laws. How many jelly beans are in this 5 gallon jar give or take 5?

So, we should only apply the Constitution for laws that we like. All laws that we don't like are just suggestions, and not really laws.

I don't think you understand the basic issue ... in the "old" days both D's and R's more or less respected the Constitution and loved the Country (remember Jefferson Jackson day dinners ... which are now non-PC)

Anyway, the rules and willingness to abide by them changed when Obie went into full trash the Constitution mode. There are plenty of examples. Look them up.

But, thanks to Obie, we have lost patience with being saps who follow the rules while the Left burns the place down. We will no longer do that. That's what the Trump phenomenon is largely about.

Hence the earlier poster's point about enforcing the Judeo Christian values and making English in effect the official language are the result of Obie's illegalities. We're fed up ... no more. Understand?

We will fight to get America back to a place of sanity ...one nation, under God with liberty and justice for all etc. In the meantime, no one is going to force religion down one's throat ... the secular humanists already have one with atheism. But, its' simply stupid and suicidal to allow much less encourage Muslim immigration to the US. Also, no more ballots except in English.

Surely even you can see the common sense here? Maybe not ...

[Guest]

I don't think you understand the basic issue ... in the "old" days both D's and R's more or less respected the Constitution and loved the Country (remember Jefferson Jackson day dinners ... which are now non-PC)

Anyway, the rules and willingness to abide by them changed when Obie went into full trash the Constitution mode. There are plenty of examples. Look them up.

But, thanks to Obie, we have lost patience with being saps who follow the rules while the Left burns the place down. We will no longer do that. That's what the Trump phenomenon is largely about.

Hence the earlier poster's point about enforcing the Judeo Christian values and making English in effect the official language are the result of Obie's illegalities. We're fed up ... no more. Understand?

We will fight to get America back to a place of sanity ...one nation, under God with liberty and justice for all etc. In the meantime, no one is going to force religion down one's throat ... the secular humanists already have one with atheism. But, its' simply stupid and suicidal to allow much less encourage Muslim immigration to the US. Also, no more ballots except in English.

Surely even you can see the common sense here? Maybe not ...

Good one. And to answer your last question, even though it wasn't meant for me, common sense is all relative to which side you are on. In my case, conservative it makes sense. On the other side, wanting to add to the voter base, no matter the legality of it, no......it is unacceptable. They will come back with "it disenfranchises the minority or the old." I do wish they would quit insulting the minorities by suggesting that a minority is too stupid to obtain an ID. Shoot, even illegals have IDs. :1rotfl:

[Guest]

Typically extreme opposite view, from the "can't be done" clan.
We all know that the constitution has never been changed since it construction, right? Sure.

We also know that the founders did NOT make the constitution to have it perverted to every liberal cause. I am not suggesting mandating a religion. I said either blah blah or none. I also said that exceptions case by case. This is national security and the gov voids the constitution in national emergency situations.
Obama violates the law all the time, and disobeys the supreme court. Are you saying it's ok for him to do it because he is black, or is he held to the same standard as the rest of America?
What's wrong with stipulations on voting rights? Oh, I get it. It might "disenfranchise" the minority voter. Kind of like the voter ID myth that it would disenfranchise the minority voter. Amazing how much the left suddenly is concerned about the minority after history proves that Democrats have always been a hindrance to their freedom.
As far as the farmers are concerned, sooooo? If they can't hire anyone, it's because they won't pay enough. If they have to increase the cost of their product, but harvest it legally, then I'm all for it. A study was done a long time ago that suggested that if you got rid of all the illegal migrants, the cost to each American for groceries would increase by $8 per year. Now, it's been a while so we would have to adjust for inflation.
But, we are a country of laws. You contradict yourself in one comment. You talk about the 1st Amendment and then want to look the other way when it comes to illegals. That is really a problem in America, isn't it? One law is good because you like it, and the other law is bad because it might cost you.
No disrespect meant to you. I am just debating the issues with you. I respect your opinion and you are right about the Religion thing. One can only try though.

We all know, which party is always waving the flag, always wanting to go back to the Constitution when it agrees with them, dismisses the Supreme Court, when a ruling goes against them. Right? Sure!

Mandating a religion. No, you just want to get of one, the Muslims. All of them are a direct threat to our national security. Mass punishment is a lazy man's way of correcting a problem. "Discourage or ban Muslims." Why stop there? Getting rid of a religion almost worked before in one country, and we are exceptional so we should be able to get the job done the right way. Like the religious leader said in Gunga Din, "Kill or be killed? Kill! Kill! Kill!" This comment goes right back to the person that made the original post that I addressed, and not you.

There are only around 3 million Muslims in the US. No big deal. If we can deport 11 million illegals, we won't even break up a sweat in killing 3 million Muslims. Sieg heil!

Voter id law is a myth. I will ask for the seventh time, Please explain the comment made by the Penn. Speaker of the House, when their voter ID law was passed, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

The reason Americans don't want to do the work on farms isn't the pay, and it's the hard work, and long hours.

Concerning the illegal immigrants, why wasn't the bipartisan Senate bill voted upon in the House several years ago? If it had, Obama wouldn't have issued his executive order on immigration. If the Republicans were worried about giving the illegals a path to citizenship, because they wouldn't vote for them, then don't give them a path to citizenship. Trump has got to be kidding with his statement deport 11 million illegals, and then bring back the good ones. Again, a simple solution to a complex problem, which is a lazy man's special.

I read somewhere today, and I am not going to look for the article, that 40% on the Muslims in the US were US citizens that converted to the religion. We will be inflicting punishment on our own. How is that acceptable. Again, wasn't that tried WW2 with the Japanese, and we have admitted our mistake? Right!

[Guest]

We all know, which party is always waving the flag, always wanting to go back to the Constitution when it agrees with them, dismisses the Supreme Court, when a ruling goes against them. Right? Sure!

Mandating a religion. No, you just want to get of one, the Muslims. All of them are a direct threat to our national security. Mass punishment is a lazy man's way of correcting a problem. "Discourage or ban Muslims." Why stop there? Getting rid of a religion almost worked before in one country, and we are exceptional so we should be able to get the job done the right way. Like the religious leader said in Gunga Din, "Kill or be killed? Kill! Kill! Kill!" This comment goes right back to the person that made the original post that I addressed, and not you.

There are only around 3 million Muslims in the US. No big deal. If we can deport 11 million illegals, we won't even break up a sweat in killing 3 million Muslims. Sieg heil!

Voter id law is a myth. I will ask for the seventh time, Please explain the comment made by the Penn. Speaker of the House, when their voter ID law was passed, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

The reason Americans don't want to do the work on farms isn't the pay, and it's the hard work, and long hours.

Concerning the illegal immigrants, why wasn't the bipartisan Senate bill voted upon in the House several years ago? If it had, Obama wouldn't have issued his executive order on immigration. If the Republicans were worried about giving the illegals a path to citizenship, because they wouldn't vote for them, then don't give them a path to citizenship. Trump has got to be kidding with his statement deport 11 million illegals, and then bring back the good ones. Again, a simple solution to a complex problem, which is a lazy man's special.

I read somewhere today, and I am not going to look for the article, that 40% on the Muslims in the US were US citizens that converted to the religion. We will be inflicting punishment on our own. How is that acceptable. Again, wasn't that tried WW2 with the Japanese, and we have admitted our mistake? Right!

Typical liberal agenda. One extreme or another, never a between or compromise. The party of "it can't be done."

Who was it again that said it was either his deal or go to war? No in between allowed I guess. Funny how sanctions worked for a long time, but they can't work now. It has to be Obama's deal or a war.

Same thing as you are saying. It has to be all or nothing. You all are perfectly OK with changing the constitution or interpreting it YOUR way, but shame on anyone else making a suggestion.

Sorry, but in my country we don't work hard to protect liberals for nothing. We also want a bit of national security. I'd love to hear you slant on the gun laws. No, actually I wouldn't.

I never said one word about killing Muslims in America. I didn't even say anything about deporting them. You seem to read what ever you want. It's bad enough that Muslims are allowed to get their photos taken for driver's licenses with their burka covering their faces. Either we start NOW to defend our country or we surrender to the radicals and give up our freedom.

Liberals don't mind if someone else sacrifices for their freedom. They think they are fighting the war for freedom when they march on Wall St. Or protest when some stupid thug criminal is gunned down by a police officer. That's how they defend our country.

Getting off the soap box now. Isn't it a nice day?

[Guest]

We all know, which party is always waving the flag, always wanting to go back to the Constitution when it agrees with them, dismisses the Supreme Court, when a ruling goes against them. Right? Sure!

Mandating a religion. No, you just want to get of one, the Muslims. All of them are a direct threat to our national security. Mass punishment is a lazy man's way of correcting a problem. "Discourage or ban Muslims." Why stop there? Getting rid of a religion almost worked before in one country, and we are exceptional so we should be able to get the job done the right way. Like the religious leader said in Gunga Din, "Kill or be killed? Kill! Kill! Kill!" This comment goes right back to the person that made the original post that I addressed, and not you.

There are only around 3 million Muslims in the US. No big deal. If we can deport 11 million illegals, we won't even break up a sweat in killing 3 million Muslims. Sieg heil!

Voter id law is a myth. I will ask for the seventh time, Please explain the comment made by the Penn. Speaker of the House, when their voter ID law was passed, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

The reason Americans don't want to do the work on farms isn't the pay, and it's the hard work, and long hours.

Concerning the illegal immigrants, why wasn't the bipartisan Senate bill voted upon in the House several years ago? If it had, Obama wouldn't have issued his executive order on immigration. If the Republicans were worried about giving the illegals a path to citizenship, because they wouldn't vote for them, then don't give them a path to citizenship. Trump has got to be kidding with his statement deport 11 million illegals, and then bring back the good ones. Again, a simple solution to a complex problem, which is a lazy man's special.

I read somewhere today, and I am not going to look for the article, that 40% on the Muslims in the US were US citizens that converted to the religion. We will be inflicting punishment on our own. How is that acceptable. Again, wasn't that tried WW2 with the Japanese, and we have admitted our mistake? Right!"

"I will ask for the seventh time, Please explain the comment made by the Penn. Speaker of the House, when their voter ID law was passed, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

When President Obama referenced Republicans as being like the hardliners in Tehran and called them crazies, it was not really much of a story except for one day and then the President backed off and it is only used in trading insults on forums now.

"President Obama is clearly sick of Republican games and drama. At an event in Nevada, the President called Senate Republicans “the crazies.”

Sick And Tired Of Republican Nonsense Obama Calls Senate Republicans "The Crazies" (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/25/obama-speaks-mind-calls-mitch-senate-republicans-crazies.html)

Then there was this one....

"If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

In both cases, the President was quoted correctly but without nuance or context and it was news for a bit......

BUT...

You are asking SEVEN TIMES about a slip of the tongue made in the heat of a presidential election ??????? Come on...cancel your subscription to THINK AMERICA and begin to get a life that includes pertinent facts and not ramblings on this forum

And when will you explain how Bush destroyed the auto industry or even find something even hints at something like that. ?

And when you respond to the number of reading articles given to you on here that defy all your logic on the financial meltdown ?

Or is it your intent to just wail away with the old tried and true things from liberal web sites ?

[Guest]

Oh, and are you so naive and uninformed you cannot see the politics of immigration reform ? You ONLY speak of the wonderful President and how those big bad Republicans held him back from good old immigration reform.

This is a para from an article and I wonder why I give you links to read because it is obvious you dont and wont, but this article, which by the way finally gets to blaming Republicans for the last lack of a bill, but speaks about the situation lik this....

"Why immigration reform died in Congress

Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014). Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) But now, no reasonable person can say that immigration’s death -- in 2013 and 2014 -- is anyone’s fault but House Republicans. Still, we also understand why they killed it: They saw no short-term benefit. "

Politics, for good or bad, is not as simple as those website you read and blindly believe. There are two sides and and unless you read both, well....

Of course you never ever reveal your sources, only that you heard a guy or something......but even though you have no sources, you can still make the accusations

[Guest]

"

"I will ask for the seventh time, Please explain the comment made by the Penn. Speaker of the House, when their voter ID law was passed, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

When President Obama referenced Republicans as being like the hardliners in Tehran and called them crazies, it was not really much of a story except for one day and then the President backed off and it is only used in trading insults on forums now.

"President Obama is clearly sick of Republican games and drama. At an event in Nevada, the President called Senate Republicans “the crazies.”

Sick And Tired Of Republican Nonsense Obama Calls Senate Republicans "The Crazies" (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/25/obama-speaks-mind-calls-mitch-senate-republicans-crazies.html)

Then there was this one....

"If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

In both cases, the President was quoted correctly but without nuance or context and it was news for a bit......

BUT...

You are asking SEVEN TIMES about a slip of the tongue made in the heat of a presidential election ??????? Come on...cancel your subscription to THINK AMERICA and begin to get a life that includes pertinent facts and not ramblings on this forum

And when will you explain how Bush destroyed the auto industry or even find something even hints at something like that. ?

And when you respond to the number of reading articles given to you on here that defy all your logic on the financial meltdown ?

Or is it your intent to just wail away with the old tried and true things from liberal web sites ?

So, you are trying to write off the Penn. Speaker comment as a slip of the tongue. Then, explain the judges ruling against the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/us/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-struck-down.html?_r=0

If you don't like the NY Times article, then goggle Penn voter id laws. Please by all means post the slip of the tongue justification. That explanation truly takes the cake. How about the old adage "truer words are often said in jest". He knew what he was saying, and meant every word of it. That was no slip of the tongue.

Why should I explain something that I never said about "W" concerning the auto industry? Now, I have to explain things that I don't believe happened. How did I win this honor?

I have never read Think America, but now I subscribe to it! Stop trying to place me in a box that doesn't fit.

I am a moderate independent, but anyone here that tries to drag the Republicans back to the center is a liberal. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate, whose views haven't changed, is now considered a liberal.

If you don't think what I am saying has some merit, did you watch the debate on Wednesday? It was held in the Reagan Library. Do you disagree with the fact that President Reagan, the conservative, and Tip O'Neil, the liberal, were complete opposites, but worked together to get things done. That was the background of the place , where the debate was held.

Did you listen to my choice for our next president, John Kasich? He spoke to the effect that the parties have to work together to get things done. President Reagan II! NOT A PEEP FROM THE AUDIENCE. The audience was made up of people invited there by the people that run the Reagan Library. Kasich was the only one that is a Reagan Republican, but most of the rest of them will point to President Reagan as the Republican model to follow. If you looked at Kasich's body language, you could see his total frustration with the other candidates, and the crowd.

Do I go over the top on some of my posts? You are damn right I do. Why? I am totally frustrated with the tone, and substance of most of the posts on this forum. It is monkey is monkey do. Don't worry I won't be long on this board.

By the way , opinion isn't the same as talk as you noted on a previous post with the wiseass "duh" comment. 30% of the people polled don't know if the Iran agreement is a good deal. I sure that they have talked about, but don't have a up or down opinion.

[Guest]

So, you are trying to write off the Penn. Speaker comment as a slip of the tongue. Then, explain the judges ruling against the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/us/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-struck-down.html?_r=0

If you don't like the NY Times article, then goggle Penn voter id laws. Please by all means post the slip of the tongue justification. That explanation truly takes the cake. How about the old adage "truer words are often said in jest". He knew what he was saying, and meant every word of it. That was no slip of the tongue.

Why should I explain something that I never said about "W" concerning the auto industry? Now, I have to explain things that I don't believe happened. How did I win this honor?

I have never read Think America, but now I subscribe to it! Stop trying to place me in a box that doesn't fit.

I am a moderate independent, but anyone here that tries to drag the Republicans back to the center is a liberal. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate, whose views haven't changed, is now considered a liberal.

If you don't think what I am saying has some merit, did you watch the debate on Wednesday? It was held in the Reagan Library. Do you disagree with the fact that President Reagan, the conservative, and Tip O'Neil, the liberal, were complete opposites, but worked together to get things done. That was the background of the place , where the debate was held.

Did you listen to my choice for our next president, John Kasich? He spoke to the effect that the parties have to work together to get things done. President Reagan II! NOT A PEEP FROM THE AUDIENCE. The audience was made up of people invited there by the people that run the Reagan Library. Kasich was the only one that is a Reagan Republican, but most of the rest of them will point to President Reagan as the Republican model to follow. If you looked at Kasich's body language, you could see his total frustration with the other candidates, and the crowd.

Do I go over the top on some of my posts? You are damn right I do. Why? I am totally frustrated with the tone, and substance of most of the posts on this forum. It is monkey is monkey do. Don't worry I won't be long on this board.

By the way , opinion isn't the same as talk as you noted on a previous post with the wiseass "duh" comment. 30% of the people polled don't know if the Iran agreement is a good deal. I sure that they have talked about, but don't have a up or down opinion.

I refer you to post #31 on the thread titled ""Wow" is all I can say" Your words "the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy."

In addition to not responding to that you never responded to the muiltiple links and questions I submitted to you on the entire financial problems in 2008.

AS far as the statement in Pennsylvania, I never...NOT ONCE said it was a slip of the tongue. YOU and just YOU added that little piece. I never said it or even implied it.

You tear down the posters on this forum, and while I agree there is a lot of stuff that should not happen, those who do it do not come on here AS YOU DO and preach to everyone. You are the worst offender of NEVER backing up what you say and simply making random accusations.

And when you leave the board, I wish you luck but in life stop lecturing people on what YOU do...that is my reason for coming back at you. Do not like lectures from people who are the offenders.

[Guest]

I refer you to post #31 on the thread titled ""Wow" is all I can say" Your words "the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy."

In addition to not responding to that you never responded to the muiltiple links and questions I submitted to you on the entire financial problems in 2008.

AS far as the statement in Pennsylvania, I never...NOT ONCE said it was a slip of the tongue. YOU and just YOU added that little piece. I never said it or even implied it.

You tear down the posters on this forum, and while I agree there is a lot of stuff that should not happen, those who do it do not come on here AS YOU DO and preach to everyone. You are the worst offender of NEVER backing up what you say and simply making random accusations.

And when you leave the board, I wish you luck but in life stop lecturing people on what YOU do...that is my reason for coming back at you. Do not like lectures from people who are the offenders.

My posts on "Wow, is all I can say" thread were 22, 29, 38, and 62. Have you ever seen one of my posts that are that long and only one paragraph?

Is post number 11 on this thread yours? It sure looks like it. take a good look at that post, and tell me where I ever said that the Penn. House leader comment was a slip of the tongue. I will ask an eighth time to justify the Penn. House Speaker statement, "We just gave Penn. to Romney." But the Penn. voter id law wasn't directed at inner city blacks. If you won't answer that question, keep your preaching to yourself.

As far as not backing up my statements with never backing up my comments with articles. That is total nonsense. I have never seen one of your articles concerning the 2008 recession. I am pretty sure that you have me confused with someone else. attached them here and I will look at them.

When people here make totally absurd posts, and I respond, I am the one doing the preaching! Nice try! Are you the one that starts every post with a wise comment. Like I can't believe I am responding to this. Or this forum is about opinions duh.

[Guest]

Oh, and are you so naive and uninformed you cannot see the politics of immigration reform ? You ONLY speak of the wonderful President and how those big bad Republicans held him back from good old immigration reform.

This is a para from an article and I wonder why I give you links to read because it is obvious you dont and wont, but this article, which by the way finally gets to blaming Republicans for the last lack of a bill, but speaks about the situation lik this....

"Why immigration reform died in Congress

Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014). Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) But now, no reasonable person can say that immigration’s death -- in 2013 and 2014 -- is anyone’s fault but House Republicans. Still, we also understand why they killed it: They saw no short-term benefit. "

Politics, for good or bad, is not as simple as those website you read and blindly believe. There are two sides and and unless you read both, well....

Of course you never ever reveal your sources, only that you heard a guy or something......but even though you have no sources, you can still make the accusations

You know why I can't read the links, because they are not included in your post. If they are, they are very well hidden.

You start every post with an insult. For some reason known only to you, you think that bothers people. Not only does it not bother people, they know exactly, who they are dealing with.

The reason why I know you can't tell one poster from another is I always cut, and paste any article that a reference in a post. Most of my references come from Wikipedia. I don't go on any liberal web site. The only news program that I watch is Morning Joe.

I have seen all your post, because you identify yourself by the first sentence of very post. So, don't even pretend that you read both sides of an issue. If you do, it is only reason to try a rip apart the opposing view.

How many times did McConnell filibuster legislation in 2009-2010? You are going to sit there, and pretend that McConnell wouldn't have filibustered any immigration bills that hit the Senate floor. Come on, man!

Republican can argue anything they want about why immigration laws haven't changed. They have to know that building a fence, and nothing else will never pass. Deporting 11 million illegals will never happen. The senate bill that passed several years ago wouldn't pass in the Senate now, because the Republicans see no reason to compromise now.

[Guest]

I take back the comment that I made about you not providing the link, but it wasn't included in your post. Here is the article.

Why Immigration Reform Died in Congress - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-immigration-reform-died-congress-n145276)

The Republicans saw no short term benefit. Most people would think they saw no short term benefit in dealing with illegals in this country. That the problem would still be there. Why didn't you quote the rest of that statement? They saw no short term political gain in immigration reform. So, now we are not going to do want is best for the country, but we are going to what is best for our party?

[Guest]

You know why I can't read the links, because they are not included in your post. If they are, they are very well hidden.

You start every post with an insult. For some reason known only to you, you think that bothers people. Not only does it not bother people, they know exactly, who they are dealing with.

The reason why I know you can't tell one poster from another is I always cut, and paste any article that a reference in a post. Most of my references come from Wikipedia. I don't go on any liberal web site. The only news program that I watch is Morning Joe.

I have seen all your post, because you identify yourself by the first sentence of very post. So, don't even pretend that you read both sides of an issue. If you do, it is only reason to try a rip apart the opposing view.

How many times did McConnell filibuster legislation in 2009-2010? You are going to sit there, and pretend that McConnell wouldn't have filibustered any immigration bills that hit the Senate floor. Come on, man!

Republican can argue anything they want about why immigration laws haven't changed. They have to know that building a fence, and nothing else will never pass. Deporting 11 million illegals will never happen. The senate bill that passed several years ago wouldn't pass in the Senate now, because the Republicans see no reason to compromise now.

Are you done whining about how misunderstood you are now? If you are going to comment on a thread, do it. Even if you are wrong, we still kind of value your input. Even if you don't have all the information and can only present one side of the issue.

[Guest]

I take back the comment that I made about you not providing the link, but it wasn't included in your post. Here is the article.

Why Immigration Reform Died in Congress - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-immigration-reform-died-congress-n145276)

The Republicans saw no short term benefit. Most people would think they saw no short term benefit in dealing with illegals in this country. That the problem would still be there. Why didn't you quote the rest of that statement? They saw no short term political gain in immigration reform. So, now we are not going to do want is best for the country, but we are going to what is best for our party?


The quote and link I gave you was not intended to be partisan, many links cover both sides of an issue.

You totally ignored the part in red which was the point I was trying to make, and you either missed it or just ignored it.

That is why it was in red.

Bye