Thread: Desperate California Could Split Into 4 States

Interesting, and I will have to go burrow somewhere and start reading Friedman again. In the old days, I guess many along with myself read through rose-colored glasses with no thought that the world would ever go as perquacky as it is now.

All that has come about is not all bad. I think there is still hope to get it back on track.

JohnDoe wrote:

If you want to run California, or any other state, you have to move to there, register to vote, and run for public office.
If you want to have a say in how any state is run you have to move there and register to vote.

I'm not so sure that's true anymore. IMO, the illegal aliens in California have been having their say in the state for some time now. Maybe they can't vote for elected officials or on propositions (or can they?), but thanks to the many illegal alien supporting organizations and illegal alien loving state legislative body members, the illegals certainly don't seem to have a problem having their voices heard.

Furthermore, it's a known fact that California has the largest population of illegal aliens in the country. That fact alone has a direct bearing on the number of elected officials that represent California in the U.S. House of Representatives (seats alloted according to total population). It's also no secret that most Congresspersons from California are Democrats and support illegal alien amnesty. Sure, some don't support amnesty (Republicans), but the majority, which are Democrats, do. Both California's Senators (Boxer & Feinstein) are hardcore amnesty supporters.

Basically, what I'm saying is, you don't need to be a registered voter to have a say in how state business is handled, especially when you have the majority of politicians in the state taking your side and speaking for you.

All states have an illegal alien problem to some degree, whether they want to admit it or not. However, California has the dubious honor of holding the infamous #1 spot.

I really feel for you and the many other folks in the state that had absolutely nothing to do with the illegal alien problem the state is having. However, I am glad to see things reach a point where it's finally necessary for California to confront the issue head-on. This is, however, unfortunately a situation where the innocent will be forced to suffer along with the guilty.

Both California's Senators (Boxer & Feinstein) are hardcore amnesty supporters.

MW:
So was Bush , McCain, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. and Reagan back in 1986.

JohnDoe2 wrote:

So was Bush , McCain, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. and Reagan back in 1986.

Not that you really made a point (if you did it was lost on me), but for the record, Reagan was not a 'hardcore' amnesty supporter. He did what he did reluctantly and later admitted to regretting his decision to give 3 million illegals amnesty.

Why do you get so defensive when people make factual comments concerning California's illegal alien problem? You can make all the comments you want about North Carolina and I'll probably agree with you on most, if not all, of them. North Carolina (my state) has problems too, however, the problems here don't quite match up to California's. Of course we're not a border state either.

IMO, the biggest problem California has is the large number of illegal alien supporting liberal politicians that have infiltrated the states political system. They have undoubtedly been your biggest nemesis. Unfortunately many of them were voted in specifically for their position on illegal immigration because California has a large Latino population and a huge agricultural industry that is dependent on cheap illegal labor.

MW:
"So was Bush , McCain, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. and Reagan back in 1986"
is just a factual comment (statement of fact) , not a defensive comment.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

"So was Bush , McCain, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. and Reagan back in 1986"
is just a factual comment (statement of fact) , not a defensive comment.

For real, how old are you?

Should I have made this much longer so that you could understand?

Not only do we have a problem because Boxer and Feinstein are pro-amnesty

but so are Obama, McCain, Clinton and Kennedy, as were Bush and Reagan.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Should I have made this much longer so that you could understand?

Not only do we have a problem because Boxer and Feinstein are pro-amnesty

but so are Obama, McCain, Clinton and Kennedy, as were Bush and Reagan.

You KNOW I'm talking about all your defensive answers.

Originally Posted by WorriedAmerican

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Should I have made this much longer so that you could understand?

Not only do we have a problem because Boxer and Feinstein are pro-amnesty

but so are Obama, McCain, Clinton and Kennedy, as were Bush and Reagan.

You KNOW I'm talking about all your defensive answers.

If you don't like my comments, there is a simple solution to YOUR problem.

Don't read them.