Results 101 to 110 of 183
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
07-12-2007, 11:26 PM #101Originally Posted by MW
It wasn't a sanctuary city in the way we think of it now, but it disallowed the NYPD and emergency service personnel from asking the immigration status of people seeking public services so the affect was identical.
It was eventually shot down by a federal court, but a few years later Bloomie was strongarmed by Hiram Montserratte and other Dodos on the City Council into signing a law that effectively nullified the ruling that declared it unconstitutional.
Ironically, Koch came out strongly against the amnesty proposal just shot down in Congress.
Some people grow wiser while others simply grow older.Reporting without fear or favor-American Rattlesnake
-
07-12-2007, 11:31 PM #102
And, as much as I dislike a lot of Giuliani's policies, I have to disagree with you there.
George W. Bush is a true-believer when it comes to open borders and embracing Mexico.
Giuliani tailors his political beliefs to whatever audience he's trying to appeal to.
That's why he could press aggressively for deporting Haitian boat people and IRA terrorists back to their home countries as a member of the Reagan DOJ, but become anti-"la migra" when he ran for mayor of this city.
Believe me, if he thinks it's in his political interest to be opposed to amnesty he will.Reporting without fear or favor-American Rattlesnake
-
07-13-2007, 01:33 AM #103Originally Posted by ShapkaServe Bush with his letter of resignation.
See you at the signing!!
-
07-13-2007, 02:15 AM #104
Shapka wrote:
Actually, Ed Koch was the one who signed that executive order.
Both of them made NYC the sanctuary city it is today!
Shapka wrote:
Believe me, if he thinks it's in his political interest to be opposed to amnesty he will."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**
Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn
-
07-13-2007, 02:28 AM #105
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- Ron Paul Land
- Posts
- 1,038
Re: Paul
Originally Posted by tancredofan
I was told about Tancredo and NAFTA from another Ron Paul supporter. I will inquire with him to that claim. If he is baseless, I will prostrate myself and apologize -- internet representation of course.
-
07-13-2007, 02:49 AM #106
Re: Paul
Originally Posted by BrightNail
If your still not convinced......Mexican military have made numerous incursions onto our soil and fired at BP officers. I demand swift military action for this. It is an unacceptable affront to our security and sovereingty, and it is absolutely military in nature.Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.
See you at the signing!!
-
07-13-2007, 02:50 AM #107Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
He's pigheaded, but he's also politically malleable when he thinks it will advance his career.
He's an RFK Democrat who was forced into the Republican Party because the Democratic Party had been taken over by far-left McGovernites.
If this were 1972 he wouldn't even be in the GOP, let alone a serious candidate for POTUS.
His objections to the amnesty bill that was tabled by the Senate were purely procedural.
It's like his views on abortion.
As mayor he's more pro-abortion than even Hillary Clinton, but now he takes the federalist position on Roe v. Wade.
My point is this.
Bush & McCain are true-believers so in a sense they are our worst enemy because they can not be convinced to abandon their open-borders ideology under any circumstances.
Giuliani and Romney are political opportunists who will go the same way the wind blows.
Thompson is a big question mark, and the other candidates-even the one I support-are not going to win.
I think that our focus needs to be on electing congressmen and senators who will thwart whoever becomes POTUS in 2008, because there's a strong likelihood that the future POTUS will be as bad or worse than Bush.
We can't have a repeat of what happened last year, otherwise the resurrection of the disastrous Kennedy bill will be the least of our worries.Reporting without fear or favor-American Rattlesnake
-
07-13-2007, 03:02 AM #108Originally Posted by Shapka
This has happened in the past. Example: JFK ran hard against Nixon in 1960 claiming the Eisenhower administration "lost Cuba." Its questionable that JFK beleived his own hard talk.....still, he ran on a "get tough with Cuba" platform, and once elected, had to make due. The results were the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, and numerous invasion plans/assassination attempts (which may have contributed to his own). The point is that re-election attempts can make presidents do some things that they themselves don't neccessarily agree with.
Politics works that way sometimes. Of course this is not 1960, and the electorate may not be able to comprimise the pres as we did in the past.Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.
See you at the signing!!
-
07-13-2007, 03:08 AM #109
If the public feels the same way it does now when/if he's elected, then "yes."
He's not going to risk reelection simply to appease the open borders crowd, even if he might agree with their ultimate goals.
How much he even agrees with them is another issue altogether since, as I've stated, so many of his expressed ideological convictions are political expedients, not genuine philosophical tenets he holds.Reporting without fear or favor-American Rattlesnake
-
07-13-2007, 03:16 AM #110Originally Posted by Shapka
Democracy is funny.......If we can comprimise an opportunistic man, so that both our goals are realised......Well, that is good enough for me!! I know he doesn't agree with it. I guess it is a matter of who can influence him more: oursevles or the globalists.
RUDY '08!!
Of course I am saying this in jest.Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.
See you at the signing!!
Biden Overwhelms Immigration Courts with Over 3.5 Million Cases...
05-07-2024, 07:50 PM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports