I'm not quoting all of that. A lot of words that really doesn't say much.
Harry Reid is the roadblock. He never brought it to a vote because it didn't give blanket amnesty. The Democrats refuse to pass anything that doesn't have full amnesty for illegal aliens.
Details are important.
Harry Reid was also the roadblock on Audit the Fed, another bipartisan bill that he wouldn't bring to a vote.
My entire point was that both sides throw up their roadblocks.
'A lot of words that really doesn't say much" (actually; a lot of words that don't really say much is the proper grammatical sentence). When I take the time to post my thoughts and opinions which are just as valid as anyone else's thoughts and opinions, including yours, and all you can say is that???? I am not going to get personal; however, when someone refuses to quote what you said and refuses to answer any questions that you ask of them and continues to say the same thing while, with one sentence, dismissing entire posts as words meaning nothing, then I feel that I have wasted my time discussing an issue with a person. I don't sit and think about what to say because i have nothing else to do or because i am a moron. Quite the contrary. So please, disagree if you wish, but do not tell people that their words mean nothing - that is what's wrong with Congress. Oh, wait, let me be Rush - it's Nancy (same name - oh my) Pelosi and Harry Reid and Obama (how the hell did he get elected - it's a scam!!!!!). Details ARE important - that's why i posted those words - you didn't properly accredit them to me. I am on vacation and I am starting to feel a bit perturbed. If details are important - it would helpful if you posted some - you still haven't named the bill - someone else did. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate - saying 'i'm not quoting that, a lot of words that mean nothing - Harry Reid, Harry Reid' is not reasoned debate. It is insulting. I deserve better. So does this country. Believe what you wish, I will not enter a discussion you start again. Fight me, tell me my facts are wrong, have a firmly held opposite opinion - but do not attempt to belittle my posts. Or give them an air of illegitimacy - hmmmm...sounds familiar. Time for fresh air and ocean. Later. >-
^^ Thanks brianlux! You can call me Nancy. (I've got 3 books with me - almost done with one) - so I'm gonna get off the train at the next stop - the beach stop of course and send my hannah strong pix i took this morning and then wrestle with big decisions like should i go to the pool or beach. Sorry i haven't stopped by the club car - it's always happy hour and I don't partake any longer. Have fun! >-
I'm not quoting all of that. A lot of words that really doesn't say much.
Harry Reid is the roadblock. He never brought it to a vote because it didn't give blanket amnesty. The Democrats refuse to pass anything that doesn't have full amnesty for illegal aliens.
Details are important.
Harry Reid was also the roadblock on Audit the Fed, another bipartisan bill that he wouldn't bring to a vote.
My entire point was that both sides throw up their roadblocks.
'A lot of words that really doesn't say much" (actually; a lot of words that don't really say much is the proper grammatical sentence). When I take the time to post my thoughts and opinions which are just as valid as anyone else's thoughts and opinions, including yours, and all you can say is that???? I am not going to get personal; however, when someone refuses to quote what you said and refuses to answer any questions that you ask of them and continues to say the same thing while, with one sentence, dismissing entire posts as words meaning nothing, then I feel that I have wasted my time discussing an issue with a person. I don't sit and think about what to say because i have nothing else to do or because i am a moron. Quite the contrary. So please, disagree if you wish, but do not tell people that their words mean nothing - that is what's wrong with Congress. Oh, wait, let me be Rush - it's Nancy (same name - oh my) Pelosi and Harry Reid and Obama (how the hell did he get elected - it's a scam!!!!!). Details ARE important - that's why i posted those words - you didn't properly accredit them to me. I am on vacation and I am starting to feel a bit perturbed. If details are important - it would helpful if you posted some - you still haven't named the bill - someone else did. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate - saying 'i'm not quoting that, a lot of words that mean nothing - Harry Reid, Harry Reid' is not reasoned debate. It is insulting. I deserve better. So does this country. Believe what you wish, I will not enter a discussion you start again. Fight me, tell me my facts are wrong, have a firmly held opposite opinion - but do not attempt to belittle my posts. Or give them an air of illegitimacy - hmmmm...sounds familiar. Time for fresh air and ocean. Later. >-
Actually I didn't quote the exact bill because as you said someone else had done so. See there's this thing called Google, which works really well for people with computers. I do most of my posting from my phone, so I leave it up to the intellegent individuals here to do their own research and not rely upon me to do so, after all who would take on an argument without having their facts? See how Halifax did it? Surely it is possible for others. So I deeply apologize for not answering your question, that was answered, surely one could see how out of line that was of me. I'm sorry that I did not stop everything that I was doing in order to do your research for you.
In the mean time it sounds like you need a break, certainly it is not worth getting so wound up because someone did not immediately answer your previously answered question again. Your grammatical correction on my post is sincerely appreciated, I never would have been able to properly illustrate my point had that error not been flagged for all to see. Thank you for your thread contribution. Have a wonderful vacation, I look forward to corresponding with you in the future.
1. Enforce the border. 2. Jail employers that hire them.
Problem solved.
Of course it won't happen because another bipartisan thing is that people like cheap labor, just like why they shop at Wal-Mart.
Agree if we also add guest worker program.
We have one now. There's no need for reform, there's need to follow the laws that are written. Democrats don't want to follow the laws because they want blanket amnesty for these people so that they can become citizens. Citizenship means votes, and votes mean the one thing that all politicians crave the most because it gives them the one and only thing that they want... the retention of POWER.
Just so that history isn't forgotten in the 112th Congress the House passed an immigration bill 389-15.
Harry Reid refused to bring it to a vote.
Just so we are clear.
Who is the roadblock again?
Of what "history" do you speak? Is it HR-3012? Or HR-1933? HR-3012, of which I think you referenced as it passed the 112th Congress 389-15 is the bill you're referring to (it was the only House bill that I could find regarding immigration with the vote tally you reference). However, it also passed after House rules were suspended and a recorded vote was taken. Why the recorded vote? Because if it truly had the bi-partisan support that you trumpet and then lay the blame for eventual failure with Senator Reid, it would have passed on a voice vote. As it was, because the republicans suspended the rules, allowing 40 minutes of debate, and forcing a recorded vote, in hopes of using a nay vote against the democrats in the mid-terms, the democrats voted overwhelmingly for the bill knowing it wouldn't go anywhere in the Senate. There were actually more republican nay votes cast in the House vote. Regardless, its hardly a "sweeping" immigration reform bill that would address what we're seeing now. Politics at its worse. Remember, the republican leadership is on record as doing everything they can to make this president fail.
SUMMARY AS OF: 11/29/2011--Passed House amended. (There are 2 other summaries)
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 18, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per country numerical limitation for family based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.
Amends the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 to eliminate the provision requiring the reduction of annual Chinese (PRC) immigrant visas to offset status adjustments under such Act.
Sets forth the following transition period for employment-based second and third preference (EB-2 and EB-3) immigrant visas: (1) for FY2012, 15% of such visas allotted to natives of countries other than the two countries with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2010; (2) for FY2013, 10% of such visas allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2011; and (3) for FY2014, 10% of such visas allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2012.
Sets forth the following per country distribution rules: (1) for transition period visas, not more than 25% of the total number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas for natives of a single country; and (2) for non-transition period visas, not more than 85% of EB-2 and EB-3 visas for natives of a single country.
Provides that the amendments made by this Act will take place as if enacted on September 30, 2011, and shall apply beginning in FY2012.
But, but, but, it was Senator Grassley, REPUBLICAN of Iowa, who placed a hold on the bill, thus denying the senate the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a vote. However, Grassley and Senator Schumer resolved Grassley's differences, namely new H-1B enforcement language and Grassley released his hold. However, "other" senators, and I don't know who they are, are preparing to raise objections, thus preventing the bill from coming to the floor for a vote.
1. Enforce the border. 2. Jail employers that hire them.
Problem solved.
Of course it won't happen because another bipartisan thing is that people like cheap labor, just like why they shop at Wal-Mart.
Agree if we also add guest worker program.
We have one now. There's no need for reform, there's need to follow the laws that are written. Democrats don't want to follow the laws because they want blanket amnesty for these people so that they can become citizens. Citizenship means votes, and votes mean the one thing that all politicians crave the most because it gives them the one and only thing that they want... the retention of POWER.
Here's an example of a truly bipartisan piece of legislation that address a problem everyone recognizes as needing fixing. An example you might have found had you done your research.
The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reemphasized on Thursday. “We’re going to do our own bill, through regular order, and it’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people.”
Just so that history isn't forgotten in the 112th Congress the House passed an immigration bill 389-15.
Harry Reid refused to bring it to a vote.
Just so we are clear.
Who is the roadblock again?
Of what "history" do you speak? Is it HR-3012? Or HR-1933? HR-3012, of which I think you referenced as it passed the 112th Congress 389-15 is the bill you're referring to (it was the only House bill that I could find regarding immigration with the vote tally you reference). However, it also passed after House rules were suspended and a recorded vote was taken. Why the recorded vote? Because if it truly had the bi-partisan support that you trumpet and then lay the blame for eventual failure with Senator Reid, it would have passed on a voice vote. As it was, because the republicans suspended the rules, allowing 40 minutes of debate, and forcing a recorded vote, in hopes of using a nay vote against the democrats in the mid-terms, the democrats voted overwhelmingly for the bill knowing it wouldn't go anywhere in the Senate. There were actually more republican nay votes cast in the House vote. Regardless, its hardly a "sweeping" immigration reform bill that would address what we're seeing now. Politics at its worse. Remember, the republican leadership is on record as doing everything they can to make this president fail.
SUMMARY AS OF: 11/29/2011--Passed House amended. (There are 2 other summaries)
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 18, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per country numerical limitation for family based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.
Amends the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 to eliminate the provision requiring the reduction of annual Chinese (PRC) immigrant visas to offset status adjustments under such Act.
Sets forth the following transition period for employment-based second and third preference (EB-2 and EB-3) immigrant visas: (1) for FY2012, 15% of such visas allotted to natives of countries other than the two countries with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2010; (2) for FY2013, 10% of such visas allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2011; and (3) for FY2014, 10% of such visas allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2012.
Sets forth the following per country distribution rules: (1) for transition period visas, not more than 25% of the total number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas for natives of a single country; and (2) for non-transition period visas, not more than 85% of EB-2 and EB-3 visas for natives of a single country.
Provides that the amendments made by this Act will take place as if enacted on September 30, 2011, and shall apply beginning in FY2012.
But, but, but, it was Senator Grassley, REPUBLICAN of Iowa, who placed a hold on the bill, thus denying the senate the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a vote. However, Grassley and Senator Schumer resolved Grassley's differences, namely new H-1B enforcement language and Grassley released his hold. However, "other" senators, and I don't know who they are, are preparing to raise objections, thus preventing the bill from coming to the floor for a vote.
No compromise, no surrender! We'll sink the Republic before we give that Stalinist, Marxist, Leninist, Muslim Kenyan any kind of credit or success. Just keep enforcing the laws that don't work or haven't kept up with the times and keep kicking the can down the road. No compromise! No surrender!
Good luck with that as a long range political strategy.
Just so that history isn't forgotten in the 112th Congress the House passed an immigration bill 389-15.
Harry Reid refused to bring it to a vote.
Just so we are clear.
Who is the roadblock again?
Of what "history" do you speak? Is it HR-3012? Or HR-1933? HR-3012, of which I think you referenced as it passed the 112th Congress 389-15 is the bill you're referring to (it was the only House bill that I could find regarding immigration with the vote tally you reference). However, it also passed after House rules were suspended and a recorded vote was taken. Why the recorded vote? Because if it truly had the bi-partisan support that you trumpet and then lay the blame for eventual failure with Senator Reid, it would have passed on a voice vote. As it was, because the republicans suspended the rules, allowing 40 minutes of debate, and forcing a recorded vote, in hopes of using a nay vote against the democrats in the mid-terms, the democrats voted overwhelmingly for the bill knowing it wouldn't go anywhere in the Senate. There were actually more republican nay votes cast in the House vote. Regardless, its hardly a "sweeping" immigration reform bill that would address what we're seeing now. Politics at its worse. Remember, the republican leadership is on record as doing everything they can to make this president fail.
SUMMARY AS OF: 11/29/2011--Passed House amended. (There are 2 other summaries)
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 18, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per country numerical limitation for family based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.
Amends the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 to eliminate the provision requiring the reduction of annual Chinese (PRC) immigrant visas to offset status adjustments under such Act.
Sets forth the following transition period for employment-based second and third preference (EB-2 and EB-3) immigrant visas: (1) for FY2012, 15% of such visas allotted to natives of countries other than the two countries with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2010; (2) for FY2013, 10% of such visas allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2011; and (3) for FY2014, 10% of such visas allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2012.
Sets forth the following per country distribution rules: (1) for transition period visas, not more than 25% of the total number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas for natives of a single country; and (2) for non-transition period visas, not more than 85% of EB-2 and EB-3 visas for natives of a single country.
Provides that the amendments made by this Act will take place as if enacted on September 30, 2011, and shall apply beginning in FY2012.
But, but, but, it was Senator Grassley, REPUBLICAN of Iowa, who placed a hold on the bill, thus denying the senate the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a vote. However, Grassley and Senator Schumer resolved Grassley's differences, namely new H-1B enforcement language and Grassley released his hold. However, "other" senators, and I don't know who they are, are preparing to raise objections, thus preventing the bill from coming to the floor for a vote.
If my "history" is incorrect or I've mistakenly referenced the incorrect bill, please correct me. So, who is the roadblock?
Peace.
... Damn it. Don't you just HATE facts? They always screw up my twisted, politically biased and completely made up opinions i form from watching T.V.
See? It doesn't matter if I answer the question, people can't seem to read it anyway. NO amnesty.
... Hey... I just saying I hate it when someone comes up with facts that blows my politically fueled opinions, (based primarily on half-truths, false premises and, often times, outright lies) completely out of the water... which causes me to back-peddle away from my original statement and attempt to side-track what I had previously said with suspect tangents and make them appear to be the ones that don't know what that are talkng about. I'm saying that I hate it when that happens to me. ... Maybe next time... I'll back my viewpoint with actual facts before presenting my opinion as truth.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
1. Enforce the border. 2. Jail employers that hire them.
Problem solved.
Of course it won't happen because another bipartisan thing is that people like cheap labor, just like why they shop at Wal-Mart.
Agree if we also add guest worker program.
We have one now. There's no need for reform, there's need to follow the laws that are written. Democrats don't want to follow the laws because they want blanket amnesty for these people so that they can become citizens. Citizenship means votes, and votes mean the one thing that all politicians crave the most because it gives them the one and only thing that they want... the retention of POWER.
Will have to check on effectiveness of current program. Like you, use my phone for much of my drivel.
Think even WO amnesty the votes will be hard for republicans. Agree though it would be an affective strategy. Course republicans will continue to redraw districts but oh well.
Republicans are in trouble, they will be forced to change, amnesty or not. again good thing.
Didn't you know they had to hide the prayer mats, get the girls out of the burqas, turn the mosque into a church, hide the Korans and put out the Bibles and usher the Marxist, Leninist, Communist, Kenyan suicide bomber indoctinaire out the back door before they could let a white, esteemed member of congress in the front door?
What? He had to use the restroom? And that prevents him from doing his job?
Yup, another plot to seize your guns and suspend the Constitution. The FEMA camps are getting their dry runs. Get ready America, the revolution starts now.
Have you ever looked at anything through humanitarian eyes? Do you consider yourself a Christian? Have you no charity?
And when you begin to answer the questions I pose to you, I'll try to take your posts a little more seriously and rebut your paranoid, delusional opinion with facts. Until then, sleep tight but keep the gun handy.
Are you familiar with the history and purpose of Ellis Island? If so, why is this different? What would your alternative be? Please explain. What solution to the current immigration crises do you propose? You, in your own words and/or policy changes? What solutions do you or your preferred elected officials should offer to address the current "crisis" along our border? I know, no blanket amnesty but what do YOU suggest? Do you understand that the Senate passed immigration reform bill was more than "blanket amnesty?" Would you be in favor of rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants? If so, how would that be accomplished? Kicking in doors, going door to door, demanding papers? Road blocks and check points? How would you address the situation that is occurring now? Please don't reference legislation that was proposed three years ago to address a situation that is occurring today. What does Rand Paul suggest as he seems to be your savior? Do we need more laws? Less freedom to address this issue? And where is the republican controlled house on this issue and why aren't they proposing legislation to address this issue and the highway funding deficit? Your thoughts please.
Maybe he should have spoken with George W. Bush and asked him questions while he had his portrait painted instead of showing up unannounced and putting a lowly paid, I assume, security guard in an uncomfortable position with his lame attempt to exploit children for his own political gain. The law was passed in 2008. Where has he been and what has this congressman been doing to be so busy that he couldn’t read a bill passed in 2008, and/or have one of his six professional staff members, or any number of interns, in his two offices research the subject for answers to his questions, and then call HHS and make an appointment to visit the children?
From Friday’s New York Times:
Policy makers on all sides were focusing increasingly on a mesh of laws mandating special treatment of unaccompanied migrant children, most of which were passed under President George W. Bush.
Under an anti-trafficking statute adopted — with bipartisan support — in 2008, minors caught traveling without their parents, if they are not from Mexico, cannot be rapidly deported. Youths from Central America must be transferred within 72 hours from the Border Patrol to the Department of Health and Human Services, which detains them in shelters and works to release them to parents or other responsible adults in the United States.
The president will seek a legal change that would allow the border authorities to treat minors from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — the home countries of most recent migrants — the way they now treat unaccompanied minors from Mexico, a country that has a different procedure because it shares a border with the United States. Under the 2008 law, youths from contiguous countries are questioned by border agents immediately after they are caught. If they do not express fear of returning home or say they have been victims of trafficking, agents can secure their consent to be deported and they are rapidly returned home.
“It’s a fair way to deal with people in the immigration system,” Mr. Earnest said of the expedited procedures. In addition, he said, “It sends a clear and unmistakable signal to parents who might be considering putting their children in the hands of a stranger, in some cases a criminal, to transport them to the southwest border, with the expectation that if they get to the border that they’ll be allowed to remain in the country: That is simply not the case.”
And here’s an adult response to the current “crisis” written by an editor for the New York Times:
His powers are limited, of course. Only Congress can give immigration the long-term, comprehensive overhaul it so badly needs. A bipartisan bill passed by the Senate a year ago — and strangled in the House — was the best hope for that. But Mr. Obama should do his utmost, within the law, to limit the damage done by an obsolete, unjust system that is deporting the wrong people, stifling businesses, damaging families and hurting the economy.
Again, who’s the roadblock? No compromise, no surrender! Freedom!
I’m beginning to think that the Bush Administration purposely broke as many things as possible to make Obama inherit such a mess that there was no way he would get re-elected. Watch what the republicans do with the federal highway trust fund, allowing unemployment to rise leading up to the mid-terms. It might be a brilliant political strategy but all it really does is fuck the average American.
Where was your faux outrage during the Bush Administration? And what was that about “not following the law?”
I wonder ,was it access to the inside of the base , as in stopped at the exterior gate or once in denied access to the area of the base these kids are housed in?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
From Snopes.com Generally speaking, I find it really really easy to tell words that were originally written on a surface and words that were added later in photoshop - and these are 100% fake. I have a little difficulty articulating WHY, but I'll try...
The slant of the letters on the sign, the closeness together of some of them... It COULD happen in real life, but it looks much more like words written with a graphics tablet in image editing software. Again, it's hard to articulate exactly what about it looks so fake to me, except to say that I've written with a graphics tablet in photoshop on many an occasion, and it always comes out looking like that.
The other thing that clues me in is uniform width of line and uniformity of color. There is no variation of shade in the line to indicate that it is written upon an unevenly lit surface. You'd also expect to see some variation of shade just from variable pressure on a marker - I'm presuming this was supposed to be written by marker. This would also lead to variable line width. The only variation in line width is where they've drawn over the same line multiple times.
So to me it screams "this is obviously fake". But at the same time, I'm not sure I could explain well enough for it to stand up in court.
ETA: The other thing that is SOOOO obvious to me, but so hard to express, is that people just plain write differently when writing big and when writing small. Writing small requires the use of fine muscles in the hand, writing big requires use of bigger muscles in the arm, so it creates a different quality of line and a different shape to some of the letters. And, again, can't articulate exactly what, but in no way does the writing there look even remotely like something drawn by someone writing big.
There are essentially 100's of articles on this sign.
Comments
Details ARE important - that's why i posted those words - you didn't properly accredit them to me. I am on vacation and I am starting to feel a bit perturbed. If details are important - it would helpful if you posted some - you still haven't named the bill - someone else did. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate - saying 'i'm not quoting that, a lot of words that mean nothing - Harry Reid, Harry Reid' is not reasoned debate. It is insulting. I deserve better. So does this country.
Believe what you wish, I will not enter a discussion you start again. Fight me, tell me my facts are wrong, have a firmly held opposite opinion - but do not attempt to belittle my posts. Or give them an air of illegitimacy - hmmmm...sounds familiar.
Time for fresh air and ocean. Later.
In the mean time it sounds like you need a break, certainly it is not worth getting so wound up because someone did not immediately answer your previously answered question again. Your grammatical correction on my post is sincerely appreciated, I never would have been able to properly illustrate my point had that error not been flagged for all to see. Thank you for your thread contribution. Have a wonderful vacation, I look forward to corresponding with you in the future.
Damn it. Don't you just HATE facts? They always screw up my twisted, politically biased and completely made up opinions i form from watching T.V.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-93530.html
The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reemphasized on Thursday. “We’re going to do our own bill, through regular order, and it’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-93530_Page2.html#ixzz36F2eFArW
Again, who's the roadblock?
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
See? It doesn't matter if I answer the question, people can't seem to read it anyway. NO amnesty.
Good luck with that as a long range political strategy.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hey... I just saying I hate it when someone comes up with facts that blows my politically fueled opinions, (based primarily on half-truths, false premises and, often times, outright lies) completely out of the water... which causes me to back-peddle away from my original statement and attempt to side-track what I had previously said with suspect tangents and make them appear to be the ones that don't know what that are talkng about.
I'm saying that I hate it when that happens to me.
...
Maybe next time... I'll back my viewpoint with actual facts before presenting my opinion as truth.
Hail, Hail!!!
Think even WO amnesty the votes will be hard for republicans. Agree though it would be an affective strategy. Course republicans will continue to redraw districts but oh well.
Republicans are in trouble, they will be forced to change, amnesty or not. again good thing.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/02/u-s-congressman-blocked-from-entering-child-immigrant-facility/?
What? He had to use the restroom? And that prevents him from doing his job?
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://themonitor.com/opinion/commentary-deadline-diseases-crossing-border-with-unaccompanied-minors/article_86f79a7c-f80a-11e3-b5ff-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm
Have you ever looked at anything through humanitarian eyes? Do you consider yourself a Christian? Have you no charity?
And when you begin to answer the questions I pose to you, I'll try to take your posts a little more seriously and rebut your paranoid, delusional opinion with facts. Until then, sleep tight but keep the gun handy.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
From Friday’s New York Times:
Policy makers on all sides were focusing increasingly on a mesh of laws mandating special treatment of unaccompanied migrant children, most of which were passed under President George W. Bush.
Under an anti-trafficking statute adopted — with bipartisan support — in 2008, minors caught traveling without their parents, if they are not from Mexico, cannot be rapidly deported. Youths from Central America must be transferred within 72 hours from the Border Patrol to the Department of Health and Human Services, which detains them in shelters and works to release them to parents or other responsible adults in the United States.
The president will seek a legal change that would allow the border authorities to treat minors from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — the home countries of most recent migrants — the way they now treat unaccompanied minors from Mexico, a country that has a different procedure because it shares a border with the United States. Under the 2008 law, youths from contiguous countries are questioned by border agents immediately after they are caught. If they do not express fear of returning home or say they have been victims of trafficking, agents can secure their consent to be deported and they are rapidly returned home.
“It’s a fair way to deal with people in the immigration system,” Mr. Earnest said of the expedited procedures. In addition, he said, “It sends a clear and unmistakable signal to parents who might be considering putting their children in the hands of a stranger, in some cases a criminal, to transport them to the southwest border, with the expectation that if they get to the border that they’ll be allowed to remain in the country: That is simply not the case.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/amid-influx-of-migrants-obama-to-skip-border-visit-on-texas-trip.html?ref=us
And here’s an adult response to the current “crisis” written by an editor for the New York Times:
His powers are limited, of course. Only Congress can give immigration the long-term, comprehensive overhaul it so badly needs. A bipartisan bill passed by the Senate a year ago — and strangled in the House — was the best hope for that. But Mr. Obama should do his utmost, within the law, to limit the damage done by an obsolete, unjust system that is deporting the wrong people, stifling businesses, damaging families and hurting the economy.
Read the full editorial here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/opinion/mr-obama-go-big-on-immigration.html?ref=opinion
Again, who’s the roadblock? No compromise, no surrender! Freedom!
I’m beginning to think that the Bush Administration purposely broke as many things as possible to make Obama inherit such a mess that there was no way he would get re-elected. Watch what the republicans do with the federal highway trust fund, allowing unemployment to rise leading up to the mid-terms. It might be a brilliant political strategy but all it really does is fuck the average American.
Where was your faux outrage during the Bush Administration? And what was that about “not following the law?”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/obama-administration-record-deportations
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.examiner.com/article/we-will-shoot-more-police-arizona-viral-photo-a-hoax
From Snopes.com
Generally speaking, I find it really really easy to tell words that were originally written on a surface and words that were added later in photoshop - and these are 100% fake. I have a little difficulty articulating WHY, but I'll try...
The slant of the letters on the sign, the closeness together of some of them... It COULD happen in real life, but it looks much more like words written with a graphics tablet in image editing software. Again, it's hard to articulate exactly what about it looks so fake to me, except to say that I've written with a graphics tablet in photoshop on many an occasion, and it always comes out looking like that.
The other thing that clues me in is uniform width of line and uniformity of color. There is no variation of shade in the line to indicate that it is written upon an unevenly lit surface. You'd also expect to see some variation of shade just from variable pressure on a marker - I'm presuming this was supposed to be written by marker. This would also lead to variable line width. The only variation in line width is where they've drawn over the same line multiple times.
So to me it screams "this is obviously fake". But at the same time, I'm not sure I could explain well enough for it to stand up in court.
ETA: The other thing that is SOOOO obvious to me, but so hard to express, is that people just plain write differently when writing big and when writing small. Writing small requires the use of fine muscles in the hand, writing big requires use of bigger muscles in the arm, so it creates a different quality of line and a different shape to some of the letters. And, again, can't articulate exactly what, but in no way does the writing there look even remotely like something drawn by someone writing big.
There are essentially 100's of articles on this sign.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©