Republicans To Redefine What It Means To Be American

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SoCalPatient, Jan 31, 2011.


    I'll say my piece on this a little later
  2. sounds like good sense to me. if we have to have a STATE there should be some restrictions on who can participate.
  3. So this is the PC revamping of the ol' "we don't want your anchor babies" argument then?
  4. if you will.....of course it could be a "revamping" of "our keynesian entitlement programs are so fucking expensive that if let every person who can get here take part, we will all go down" argument

    its a coinflip :rolleyes:
  5. Sounds good to me.

  6. I wasn't taking a stance, just an observation.
  7. Fuck everything about that.
  8. :D I don't know what I would do without you bleedin' hearts.
  9. this... doesnt seem all that terrible

  10. Republicans have been trying to define what it means to be a "true" American for quite a long time now. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they want to complicate the issue and further narrow who is legally a citizen.

    Way to take the fear mongering about illegal immigration and "anchor babies" to a whole new level. Perhaps if they offered the consolation prize of the Dream Act to help those that were born and raised here to become citizens they would stand a chance of not looking like they were simply pandering to fears that they helped to spread to begin with.

    It is politics at it's most despicable. Give the people something to fear, someone to blame, and then swoop in to the rescue. :rolleyes:

  11. arrghhh im a fear monger! Argh!!! Lets scare people by telling them that they cant get citizenship anymore just because they make love in america and make a baby!!!!!!! Scarryyyy! Argh!!!!!
  12. Well that's just fucking stupid.
  13. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously.
  14. The irony in this post is frightening.:eek:
  15. Seriously you couldn't figure out what he was talking about? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
  16. No, actually it was QP3 who misinterpreted HER post....way to be a condescending douche about it though.
  17. I suppose that I was confused by the fact that he quoted me when he chose to post what he did. Rather than guess what point he was trying to make I chose instead to ask him to clarify. I suppose not just assuming that I understood the point is rather laughable around here but I figured I would go with it anyway.

    But really she didnt have any points just the same old same old. FEAR MONGERRRRRR ARGGGHH!H!H

    She would be better off calling them FEAR MONKEYS because then we could at least make cool pictures of scary monkeys.
  19. So when Rand Paul ran on a platform of "returning to a more strict interpretation of the Constitution", what he really meant is a strict interpretation of the parts of the Constitution he likes, or a strict interpretation of the Constitution he would have written had he been alive back then.

    How does this work towards ending the abuses of power of the Federal Government?

    How does it address the problems of the "State"?

    To me it seems it doesn't do either of those things. It increases the power of the Federal Government. Seems to me it reinforces the power of the State.

    Seems to me that rounding up all illegal immigrants and deporting them is going to be as expensive as paying for the minority of them that come here and cheat their way onto entitlement programs.

    As it is, this is nothing more than an appeal to the xenophobia, jingoism, and racism of the people who elected him.

    I wondered how long it would take Rand to show his true colors as just another Republican. I never imagined it would be within a month of taking office.

Share This Page