Should we send this to the White House?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:09 PM
  #1  
dirtyd88's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2
From: Burleson, TX
Should we send this to the White House?

Mods, feel free to remove if neccesary......

I am not trying to stir up any fires under anyone's belly, just something I saw and thought was interesting.....

 

Last edited by dirtyd88; Oct 14, 2009 at 08:39 PM.
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:23 PM
  #2  
OrdnanceCorps's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 145
Likes: 1
From: Statesboro, Ga.
Irony is a b* isn't it ?
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:25 PM
  #3  
RileyDog's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
I've heard & read that Mexico's southern border is hard as hell to break through. I personally think we should set up land mines, and scan the ground for tunnels. Once a tunnel is discovered, insert a tiny nuke (that way there is residual radiation) & blow it sky high.
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:27 PM
  #4  
NASSTY's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 2
From: ME
Should we send this to the White House?
Sure why not? Send THIS too while you're at it.
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:34 PM
  #5  
Stealth's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
Originally Posted by NASSTY
Sure why not? Send THIS too while you're at it.
They already have enough of that!!! It daily spews from the holes under their noses.
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:50 PM
  #6  
thejake1989's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,673
Likes: 0
From: Rosenberg/Baytown TX
Go for it cept it won't get anywhere close to the white house. I can try and give to Obama since he's down here with George senior either today or Friday
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:54 PM
  #7  
budmur's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: Athens, TN
1) no argument here.
2) no problems here, either.
3) Is this really a problem?
4) Already a law
5) Federal: Already a law. State and local: Violates 10th amendment of constitution.
6) No problem. My guess is that this is already in place, but illegals are using falsified documents to get services. This won't help that.
7) If foreigners want to give me money, it should be my choice whether to accept or not. Keep the government out off my business.
8) Ditto. I'll sell my property to whoever I please.
9) Violates the first amendment. Civil rights apply to both citizens and non-citizens in the USA.
10) OK, but aren't there better uses of our law enforcement? My taxes are high enought without funding a bunch of illegal alien "seek and deport" squads.
 
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Oct 14, 2009 | 09:19 PM
  #8  
JackandJanet's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,887
Likes: 61
From: Among javelinas and scorpions in Zoniestan
I'm generally in agreement with most of it, but item #6 cannot be implemented as things stand right now.

President Ronald Reagan signed into law the right for ANYONE to receive emergency health care, regardless of income or immigrant status. That law, passed in 1986, is still on the books. It will have to be repealed.

Gosh - maybe we'll have to admit that President Ronald Reagan wasn't so "perfect" after all. And yes, we'll have to concede that President Obama WAS lying - possibly to protect the good name of President Reagan? After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.

So, let's just acknowledge that President Reagan screwed up, repeal the law, and move on.

If the laws are good enough for Mexico, they're good enough for me!

- Jack
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 11:50 PM
  #9  
kansasflareside's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Kansas
Originally Posted by NASSTY
Sure why not? Send THIS too while you're at it.
That is one of the greatest things I have ever seen.
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2009 | 12:36 AM
  #10  
screwyou's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Texas
Originally Posted by JackandJanet
I'm generally in agreement with most of it, but item #6 cannot be implemented as things stand right now.

President Ronald Reagan signed into law the right for ANYONE to receive emergency health care, regardless of income or immigrant status. That law, passed in 1986, is still on the books. It will have to be repealed.

Gosh - maybe we'll have to admit that President Ronald Reagan wasn't so "perfect" after all. And yes, we'll have to concede that President Obama WAS lying - possibly to protect the good name of President Reagan? After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.

So, let's just acknowledge that President Reagan screwed up, repeal the law, and move on.

If the laws are good enough for Mexico, they're good enough for me!

- Jack
Past due for your meds.
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2009 | 01:17 AM
  #11  
Klitch's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 5
From: Washington
Originally Posted by budmur
9) Violates the first amendment. Civil rights apply to both citizens and non-citizens in the USA.
really, where does it say that illegals have the same rights as legal citizens. im not preaching or acting like i know the literature, i just honestly dont remember reading anything like that

10) OK, but aren't there better uses of our law enforcement? My taxes are high enought without funding a bunch of illegal alien "seek and deport" squads.
really? your taxes are funding these "people" already.
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2009 | 01:51 AM
  #12  
HKnFORD's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: TX!!!
Why ain't it in Spanish?
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2009 | 08:54 AM
  #13  
budmur's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: Athens, TN
Originally Posted by Klitch
really, where does it say that illegals have the same rights as legal citizens. im not preaching or acting like i know the literature, i just honestly dont remember reading anything like that
It's because the first amendment doesn't give the right to free speech, it prevents congress from limiting speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since the amendment mentions "people", rather than "citizens", it applies to all within our borders. Those rights that are specific to citizens (such as serving in Congress or as the president (natural-born only)), are explilticly stated in the constitution. For free speech, it is very plainly written that there can be no laws whatsoever that prevent free speech ("shall make no law"), with a few limited exceptions, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Originally Posted by Klitch
really? your taxes are funding these "people" already.
I'm not saying that illegals shouldn't be deported; after all, they are here illegally, and the law is the law. I do have a problem with the "actively hunted" part of the statement. It makes me think of goon squads going to every brown-skinned person on the street demanding to look at their papers. I don't have a problem with law enforcement checking for citizenship or immigration status during traffic enforcement (as one example), as that's part of enforcing the laws of this country. Also, I think that employers should be held more accountable for only hiring people who are authorized to work in this country.
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2009 | 09:18 AM
  #14  
FX41's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,273
Likes: 2
From: Bronco Country
Originally Posted by JackandJanet
After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.


- Jack
Dude, your off the reservation.....
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2009 | 12:15 PM
  #15  
BennyHanna's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
From: Bismarck, ND
Originally Posted by budmur
It's because the first amendment doesn't give the right to free speech, it prevents congress from limiting speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since the amendment mentions "people", rather than "citizens", it applies to all within our borders. Those rights that are specific to citizens (such as serving in Congress or as the president (natural-born only)), are explilticly stated in the constitution. For free speech, it is very plainly written that there can be no laws whatsoever that prevent free speech ("shall make no law"), with a few limited exceptions, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.



I'm not saying that illegals shouldn't be deported; after all, they are here illegally, and the law is the law. I do have a problem with the "actively hunted" part of the statement. It makes me think of goon squads going to every brown-skinned person on the street demanding to look at their papers. I don't have a problem with law enforcement checking for citizenship or immigration status during traffic enforcement (as one example), as that's part of enforcing the laws of this country. Also, I think that employers should be held more accountable for only hiring people who are authorized to work in this country.
It does mention people earlier too... "We the people..." This phrase establishes at the beginning that people refers to U.S. citizens and not to others even if they happen to currently be in the U.S. That's how I learned it from a government professor anyway.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 AM.