Donald Trump the president of the united states of america is absolutely right

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Unless you're a Republican woman, or one that happens to be the daughter of our President, or a pro-life woman.




Hahahaha!  







Democrats fought against and voted against civil rights.  I've outlined this and provided sources, numerous times in these threads.




Again...  


http://thepoliticalinsider.com/dnc-rigged-stole-election-from-bernie-sanders/

Yeah, the Democratic party loves democracy soooooo much that they made a farce out of it.  The DNC's own attorney is arguing in court that maintaining a fair and balanced primary was merely a “political promise.”  Just a promise... that they had no intention of keeping.  The Democratic Primary wasn't a democratic event, as it was "promised" to be.  So much for democracy within the Liberal ranks, huh?



LOL!  Yeah, so long as you're not Christian or Jewish.

So, in summary...

Once again, poor little know-nothing I/T has proven that he has no clue of just what genuine "Liberalism" is...

No surprise really, when all of his references above are from far-right-wing Teabagger blogsites..

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
do you have a problem with the elderly, or are they called seniors over there?

They are called 'seniors'.  And I have no problem with seniors, I'm past my prime myself.  But, let's face it, America is a racist nation.  So older Americans are more liable to fit the mold of the Trump thesis: Make America White Again.  Trump is the last gasp of a dying American brand: older, whiter America.

But more to the point, the cliched blond hair and big tits is giving way to Americans who are more attracted to original thought and creative answers.  Blond hair and big tits are a part of America's past too, like white seniors...women have become mature, thinking beings who no longer need to sell sex in order to succeed in this world.

It's all a dying brand in America.  Why do you think Republicans need to resort to voter suppression and border walls?  It's because, on the numbers, their candidate lost by 10-million votes.

didn;t the democrats, or their forebears practically bring the KKK into existence, wasn't it the republicans that wanted to free the slaves or actually freed them.
.

remember this?

No! And nobody else does, either! http://www.snopes.com/clinton-gore-92-confederate/

Remember this?

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
didn;t the democrats, or their forebears practically bring the KKK into existence, wasn't it the republicans that wanted to free the slaves or actually freed them.
.

remember this?

No! And nobody else does, either! http://www.snopes.com/clinton-gore-92-confederate/

Remember this?

Ben Reilly wrote:I don't know. I'm guessing, Vladimir Putin?

hurrah, another win for the good guys

chortle

Original Quill wrote:I'm afraid there is no spanning the divide.  We are heading for another civil war.  I look around and all I see is hate, and hate returned.

Frankly, I'm OK with the result.  We Californians are the one's who could walk away with impunity...and probably Washington and Oregon.

Ben Reilly wrote:

hurrah, another win for the good guys

chortle

-- Adolph Hitler, after the Battle of Bautzen

The Devil, You Know wrote:never mind at least we know most people agree with the op statement. and why not it a perfectly sensible statement to make.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:never mind at least we know most people agree with the op statement. and why not it a perfectly sensible statement to make.

Well, I agreed with the text it was adopted from. I told you I didn't agree with the premise that there are unchecked immigrants pouring across the border, and that's because you presented it as though it was something Trump said or released, while it was actually released before Obama took office.

Another thing, since we're still beating this horse -- you might want to compare notes with some American righties like IT. They (and Trump) have actually been trying to push the narrative that Obama left the borders undefended in the hopes of getting a huge new crop of Democratic voters -- along with something about multiculturalism and PC and white genocide, of course.

So when you point out the fact that Obama deported about 3 million illegals, and you're a fellow righty ... you see what I'm saying? You're a little off-message there. Republicans would prefer you post stuff like this:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I'm afraid there is no spanning the divide.  We are heading for another civil war.  I look around and all I see is hate, and hate returned.

Frankly, I'm OK with the result.  We Californians are the one's who could walk away with impunity...and probably Washington and Oregon.

yes you may be right, there certainly is nothing but hate emanating from the snowflakes out there.
shame its the ones they hate that have all the guns

Deean wrote:I would suggest that if he deported 3 million, which he did then the problem of illegals is far bigger than just those 3 million or is it being suggested that he got them all?
another poster, suggested they were all criminals and about 5%, it may have been the same poster, cant remember, if it was 5 % then that would mean there are around 60million (or more) illegals currently residing in america. Mind you a poster on this thread compared mexicans to migrating elephants so it could all be bollox.

however I am not concerned by what a republicans, democrats or the man in the moon said, I only wanted to get an opinion on what the OP said. you have given yours, you agree with and are against it at the same time so at least we have cleared that up.

I imagine that some of the others here are still waiting to get the memo on how they think on this issue.
some will take a contrary view to anything I post.
so it is not surprising they cannot bring themselves to agree with the very reasonable statement.

but if that is the case then they should stand up and be counted and say they dont think illegals should be allowed and that those who employ then should face no sanctions, which would, in my view, be what someone who disagrees with the OP is ultimately saying no matter what weasel words or otherwise they employ.

phil shiner wrote:

Deean wrote:I would suggest that if he deported 3 million, which he did then the problem of illegals is far bigger than just those 3 million or is it being suggested that he got them all?
another poster, suggested they were all criminals and about 5%, it may have been the same poster, cant remember, if it was 5 % then that would mean there are around 60million (or more) illegals currently residing in america. Mind you a poster on this thread compared mexicans to migrating elephants so it could all be bollox.

however I am not concerned by what a republicans, democrats or the man in the moon said, I only wanted to get an opinion on what the OP said. you have given yours, you agree with and are against it at the same time so at least we have cleared that up.

I imagine that some of the others here are still waiting to get the memo on how they think on this issue.
some will take a contrary view to anything I post.
so it is not surprising they cannot bring themselves to agree with the very reasonable statement.

but if that is the case then they should stand up and be counted and say they dont think illegals should be allowed and that those who employ then should face no sanctions, which would, in my view, be what someone who disagrees with the OP is ultimately saying no matter what weasel words or otherwise they employ.

Tsk..tsk.  Erm...when will they be eligible to vote?

The Devil, You Know wrote:never mind at least we know most people agree with the op statement. and why not it a perfectly sensible statement to make.

The Devil, You Know wrote:ok so you dont like the OP
then how about this one?

"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:ok so you dont like the OP
then how about this one?

"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."

Wrong at the premise.  Immigrants create jobs and become taxpayers.

The real question is, Why are you afraid?  Can't you measure up to the competition?

Laws are temporary, and can be changed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Wrong at the premise.  Immigrants create jobs and become taxpayers.

The real question is, Why are you afraid?  Can't you measure up to the competition?

Laws are temporary, and can be changed.

They don't if they're illegal. At least, they shouldn't because they need a NI number, and proof that they're allowed to work here.

Raggamuffin wrote:How do they create jobs anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:Going to work isn't creating a job is it? It's just doing a job that someone else created.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:ok so you dont like the OP
then how about this one?

"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."

Wrong at the premise.  Immigrants create jobs and become taxpayers.

The real question is, Why are you afraid?  Can't you measure up to the competition?

Laws are temporary, and can be changed.

nicko wrote:Immigrants create jobs and pay taxes, they might in your country,
Here they spend their time marching through towns and Cities waving flags and demanding we change our laws to fit in with theirs !

Before you say that's not true,it is the hard liners that kick up a fuss, the majority stay silent in their houses.

Thorin wrote:

nicko wrote:Immigrants create jobs and pay taxes, they might in your country,
Here they spend their time marching through towns and Cities waving flags and demanding we change our laws to fit in with theirs !

Before you say that's not true,it is the hard liners that kick up a fuss, the majority stay silent in their houses.

Point of order.
How many of the 7 million foreigners have you seen do this nicko?
Also, how many are even immigrants and not British born?
You seem to be casting many hard working immigrants there Nicko, based off I guess Islamists.
We also have Britain's First and the EDL march through towns demanding laws to be changed. Do you hold all British born people to the same standard as these two groups made up of British born people?
I mean considering there is 7 million foreign born people here and the majority are between the age bracket of 20-40. Even discounting some stay at home women, children and the elderly and unemployment is at 1.6 million. You are being very disingenuous towards where at least 5 million of them are working

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Point of order.
How many of the 7 million foreigners have you seen do this nicko?
Also, how many are even immigrants and not British born?
You seem to be casting many hard working immigrants there Nicko, based off I guess Islamists.
We also have Britain's First and the EDL march through towns demanding laws to be changed. Do you hold all British born people to the same standard as these two groups made up of British born people?
I mean considering there is 7 million foreign born people here and the majority are between the age bracket of 20-40. Even discounting some stay at home women, children and the elderly and unemployment is at 1.6 million. You are being very disingenuous towards where at least 5 million of them are working

you seem to be skirting round the issue and that is sharia. are you suggesting that sharia is not a threat to the british way of life. there are a very vocal minority, backed by a largely silent majority, who are working, and I use that term loosely, to ensure sharia law overrides UK law. Allowing any other type of laws to override UK law is the thin end of the wedge. Sharia law is not compatible with the  western way of life in any way, shape or form. It is oppressive.
If islamic countries want to implement sharia then that is their right, just as it is our right to stamp it out wherever it springs up in the UK. Labour and the tories have been to lax in allowing it's growth.

British law should be supreme in britain.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you seem to be skirting round the issue and that is sharia. are you suggesting that sharia is not a threat to the british way of life. there are a very vocal minority, backed by a largely silent majority, who are working, and I use that term loosely, to ensure sharia law overrides UK law. Allowing any other type of laws to override UK law is the thin end of the wedge. Sharia law is not compatible with the  western way of life in any way, shape or form. It is oppressive.
If islamic countries want to implement sharia then that is their right, just as it is our right to stamp it out wherever it springs up in the UK. Labour and the tories have been to lax in allowing it's growth.

British law should be supreme in britain.

Where am I skirting around sharia in my post?
Never even mentioned this.
There are many things that are a threat to secular values.
Like the Far Right, the Far Left and religious ideologies.
No religious law should supersede British law, I made this very clear in this thread on any country.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19847-sweden-hate-speech-just-for-imams

So out of the 7 million foreigners, are you now claiming they are all Muslims?
You seem to only be concerned at one ideology, when I am critical of many

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I'm afraid there is no spanning the divide.  We are heading for another civil war.  I look around and all I see is hate, and hate returned.

Frankly, I'm OK with the result.  We Californians are the one's who could walk away with impunity...and probably Washington and Oregon.

yes you may be right, there certainly is nothing but hate emanating from the snowflakes out there.
shame its the ones they hate that have all the guns

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes you may be right, there certainly is nothing but hate emanating from the snowflakes out there.
shame its the ones they hate that have all the guns

Let's see...a war between California and Alabama.  Hmmm...tough choice.  

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let's see...a war between California and Alabama.  Hmmm...tough choice.  

yep, california would not stand a chance. there would not be enough safe spaces to cower in.

here piggy piggy.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yep, california would not stand a chance. there would not be enough safe spaces to cower in.

here piggy piggy.

Adjectives and pronouns have no force.  If you haven't got anything to say, or don't realize what others are saying, keep quiet and learn.

If the US dissolves into 50 different political entities--which appears to be the conservative 'state's rights' agenda--then California is going to do very well.  It is the 5th-largest economy in the world.  Moreover, any other state that stands with it is going to do very well also.

The inverse of that fact is, those states that stand against California will do very poorly.  Ironically, the money in the US social safety net flows from the wealthy states to the poor states, yet the poor states are southern states that oppose such assistance.

As John Stuart Mill said, I didn't say conservatives are always stupid, but that stupid people are always conservative.  Southern states are stupid, and look...they stand against their own interests: most in need of assistance, first to reject assistance.  Market economics is inevitably a win/lose game, so someone has to be the winner in this equation.  That would be California.

Anyone who thinks California can be eaten up by Alabama believes the tail can wag the dog.  If, under any circumstances, one assumes any kind of union of Alabama and California, trust me...California will end up controlling the union.  So enough with your idiotic theory that the weak can control the strong.

The strong are strong because they are healthy.  The weak are weak because they are not healthy.  New York and California are healthy; Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are infirm and disabled.  New York and California are liberal.  Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are conservative.  So much for which ideology fosters good health.

Good health is strength; strength is dominance; dominance determines who will rule.  If we are going to break up into 50 individual states in a state's right movement...I'm the luckiest guy of all.

Original Quill wrote:Talk about faux news...search the whole story, and there's no substantiation.  It says...

Forbes wrote:Meanwhile, the basic infrastructure of the state, so necessary for the economy long and short term, is collapsing.

It's been comical watching the national news fuss so much over us.  But it's a myth...there is no evidence that any infrastructure is collapsing.  We have welcomed record rains, and our dams have held.  Our levies are fine.  The potholes are being filled.  Route 37 is back open.  The Interstates have been repaired.  Everything is completely restored here, two days after the rain stopped...no worries.

Certainly all over the country the Republican McConnell-Boehner doctrine (failure to enact legislation while the opposite party is in power)  has led to a deterioration of the infrastructure all over the country.  Bridges have fallen in Minnesota and Missouri. Trains have derailed in Pennsylvania.   Tornadoes have toppled schools in Texas.  Shit happens.

But hey...who better than California to pick up the slack left behind by the lazy Republicans?  California can afford it. It is the 5th largest economy in the world. There has not been even a dent in our ability to provide.  But can Alabama afford it?  Can South Carolina?  Those states go crying for federal help as soon as they get a speck of dust in their eye. I think they might be in trouble, but not California..

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let's see...a war between California and Alabama.  Hmmm...tough choice.  

yep, california would not stand a chance. there would not be enough safe spaces to cower in.

here piggy piggy.

Original Quill wrote:I've already answered that Forbes article over on the "California..." thread, in the US News section.

However, for convenience, here it is...

Original Quill wrote:Talk about faux news...search the whole story, and there's no substantiation.  It says...



It's been comical watching the national news fuss so much over us.  But it's a myth...there is no evidence that any infrastructure is collapsing.  We have welcomed record rains, and our dams have held.  Our levies are fine.  The potholes are being filled.  Route 37 is back open.  The Interstates have been repaired.  Everything is completely restored here, two days after the rain stopped...no worries.

Certainly all over the country the Republican McConnell-Boehner doctrine (failure to enact legislation while the opposite party is in power)  has led to a deterioration of the infrastructure all over the country.  Bridges have fallen in Minnesota and Missouri. Trains have derailed in Pennsylvania.   Tornadoes have toppled schools in Texas.  Shit happens.

But hey...who better than California to pick up the slack left behind by the lazy Republicans?  California can afford it. It is the 5th largest economy in the world. There has not been even a dent in our ability to provide.  But can Alabama afford it?  Can South Carolina?  Those states go crying for federal help as soon as they get a speck of dust in their eye. I think they might be in trouble, but not California..

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

Nothing to it.  Doin fine over here.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yep, california would not stand a chance. there would not be enough safe spaces to cower in.

here piggy piggy.

Alabama  !?!

Youu're a funny man,  DYKnose..

Once again, Deano shows us what a clueless little nong he really is..

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I've already answered that Forbes article over on the "California..." thread, in the US News section.

However, for convenience, here it is...



Nothing to it.  Doin fine over here.

the oroville dam was a case in point. 12 years ago it was reported as being in urgent need of repair and california ignored it. Only blind luck stopped towns below it ending up under 100 feet of water.

Deeno wrote:If a fraction that had been spent helping illegal immigrants had been spent on that dam then there would have been no need to evacuate 200000 people, if a fraction had been spent on building more reservoirs in california then LA would not need to take water from all over the state.California has been a one party state for donkeys years and should have been able to sort those problems out. They didn't

Phil Shiner wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

the oroville dam was a case in point. 12 years ago it was reported as being in urgent need of repair and california ignored it. Only blind luck stopped towns below it ending up under 100 feet of water.

Sorry to disappoint.  The Oroville dam held.  Granted, the Feather River behind it had a 100-year flood, but all is well.  There was a sink hole in the spillway, but the back-up spillway functioned perfectly.

Deeno wrote:If a fraction that had been spent helping illegal immigrants had been spent on that dam then there would have been no need to evacuate 200000 people, if a fraction had been spent on building more reservoirs in california then LA would not need to take water from all over the state.California has been a one party state for donkeys years and should have been able to sort those problems out. They didn't

Oh, I see...your resident Americans on Flap haven't understood the issues.  California is a sanctuary state, filled with sanctuary cities.  Know what 'sanctuary' means?  It means that the state, and the cities, refuse to spend a centavo on helping the federal government with it's discriminatory immigration policy.  So where is this money that comes from nowhere, being wasted?

Here is where your logic begins to fray.  Los Angeles takes water from all over the state because it has the most need...it is the second largest city in the Nation.  The Central California Aqueduct ships the water from the Sierras directly down to LA County.  Reservoirs would only hold things up and be a waste of time and money for that transfer.  So the money that isn't spent on rounding up immigrants, would otherwise go to building reservoirs that aren't needed??  Didn't think that one through, did you Dean?

Your RW story feeders over at Flap, who feed you arguments about America, are not real informed on that one.  What they have confused is the argument about the drought, on the one hand, and the Oroville Dam story on the other.  Listen closely:  If we build more reservoirs, we could store more water, reducing the consequences of the drought.  But that's the exact opposite logic as needed when the rain comes.  Just as drought is the opposite of rain, so reservoirs are the opposite of what is needed to get water to LA County.  Reservoirs answer to drought by storing water; they don't help get water southward.

Deeno wrote:the damn held but was within hours of total collapse. Only a break in the weather and being able to lower it 50 feet saved the day. something that almost caused the collapse by using the emergency spillway which was part of the problem.

Deeno wrote:the point you have avoided is that the warnings on the damn came 12 years ago and nothing was done because presumably the money wasn't available. Odd considering how well you say california is doing.
you seem obsessed as andwew with t'other place. Are you saying forbes is not a mainstream outlet.

New York Times wrote:Forbes was conceived and built by the first generation — B. C. Forbes — but fully realized by the second. Malcolm Forbes was a media mogul in full, including a lifestyle replete with islands, palaces, ranches and private jets that embodied the brand. Under his reign, the Forbes formula of how to get/be/stay rich struck an aspirational note perfectly in tune with the times.

Deeno wrote:how much is spent on illegal immigrants each year and how much has been spent on the oroville dam.

Deeno wrote:all californias problems can be put down to their one party state control.

Original Quill wrote:

Deeno wrote:the damn held but was within hours of total collapse. Only a break in the weather and being able to lower it 50 feet saved the day. something that almost caused the collapse by using the emergency spillway which was part of the problem.

Meh...suppositions about states of affairs we'll never know.  It didn't happen.  The dam held, just like it was designed to do.  I suspect it was a bigger story on Good Morning America, than it was here on the spot.  It was what they call a slow news day.

The break in the weather was fully anticipated...and look, it materialized.  Anticipating the weather was what determined to rate of release down the spillway.  It was all calculated.  Frankly, all-in-all, things worked like clockwork.

Deeno wrote:the point you have avoided is that the warnings on the damn came 12 years ago and nothing was done because presumably the money wasn't available. Odd considering how well you say california is doing.
you seem obsessed as andwew with t'other place. Are you saying forbes is not a mainstream outlet.

Yes, this is another example of Republican obstructionism in Congress.  On October 17, 2005, environmental groups filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, urging renovation of the emergency spillway.  Owing to the McConnell-Boehner doctrine, Republicans refused to pass any infrastructure spending legislation as long as a black man was president.  Now, under Trump, I expect they will do away with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission altogether.  Trump doesn't like public protection agencies.  Shame.

Forbes is to print media, what Faux News is to cable media.  It is representative of readers who have Republican expectations.  After all, it is a neo-capitalist magazine:

New York Times wrote:Forbes was conceived and built by the first generation — B. C. Forbes — but fully realized by the second. Malcolm Forbes was a media mogul in full, including a lifestyle replete with islands, palaces, ranches and private jets that embodied the brand. Under his reign, the Forbes formula of how to get/be/stay rich struck an aspirational note perfectly in tune with the times.

Deeno wrote:how much is spent on illegal immigrants each year and how much has been spent on the oroville dam.

Ask Republicans.  Californians refuse to participate in Federal Republican fascist round-up programs.  We like our neighbors.  The Federal ICE has a presence on the borders.  Let them take care of the counting.

Deeno wrote:all californias problems can be put down to their one party state control.

Problems?  In sunny California?  Perish the idea...lol.    All of California's wealth, as well as it's many successes, can be put down to Democratic Party control.  All the rest of the country is in a complete mess, and here's California sailing under clear, blue skies.  Doesn't that make you wonder who's taking care of business?

Perhaps the rest of the country could take lessons.  They should send emissaries to study our successes.  The rest of the country is in a total mess because Republicans choose party over country...they choose not to take care of the nation as long as the other party has the executive power.  For ten years under the McConnell-Boehner doctrine the Republican Congress has obstructed any advancement into the 21st-century.  It's all down to Republican selfishness and racism.

You would think, what with such misery in areas of the south, plains and mid-west, that California would stand out like a beacon.  People should be asking, how do they do so well?  CalTrnns is a well-oiled machine, as are Cal Fish & Game, Cal Parks & Recreation, CHP, bridges and watershed management.  

We in California have recently moved into the position of fifth largest economy in the world, overtaking France...which, notice, is not just a state, but is a major European nation.  We are still moving up.  So what is our relationship with our own nation?  We don't go hat in hand to the feds whenever there's a bump in the road, like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or South Carolina.  We fix things first, and then work out the bill with the feds.  California is the one political entity that can deal equally, at arms-length with the federal government.  Think about that the next time you Europeans think about becoming the Republican lap dog.

Republicans and conservatives promote poverty and corruption through their policies of tax cuts for the rich and reduction of public protections; their view of politics is as a pig's trough--to down as much as they can before the neighbor--or indigestion--moves in.  Liberals and progressives view politics as an opportunity to fix things when they go wrong, and otherwise live peaceably under comfortable conditions.  That's how California does it...friendliness, responsibility and diligence.

The Devil, You Know wrote:"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."



what a bastard

The Devil, You Know wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."



what a bastard

what no one is going to have a go at the good old boy Bill because of his racist attitudes to johnny foreigner? It's pretty much what trump has said.

Perhaps you now understand why so many people think socialists are such utter hypocrites.

Ben Reilly wrote:Bill Clinton, the innovator of American Third Way politics, a socialist?

I guess that makes Obama a full-on Marxist?