• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American

Oh, by the way. Harry Reid was as wrong then as Pelosi is now!
 
You are so naive - sometimes the term traitor applies. So often politicians (D's much more often than R's) perform acts of treason when they think it gives them political capital... more power and/or money! They might not even realize how they are bringing down the country that provides their seat of power and often their wealth. It doesn't matter... their acts are still treasonous!

I was illustrating the difference between fact and opinion. Just because you think someone is a traitor doesn't mean that they actually are a traitor according to the law. Logic would dictate that if they were in fact a traitor that they would be charged as such. Obviously you don't understand the difference.

One example that chaps my hide: How many U. S. soldiers do you think were killed in Iraq due to the very much publicized image of Harry Reid stating something to the effect "We have lost the war in Iraq!" Don't you think that Reid's image on CNN in Iraq demoralized our troops and pumped up the enemy... likely resulting in stronger resistance by an enemy who thinks they are winning or at least have a chance... ultimately resulting in the death of U. S. soldiers. This is an example of a treasonous act by Harry Reid for which he will never be held accountable! That bastard! The Democrat party has many such players... Murtha is another prime example of the traitors with a D beside their name!

Frankly I don't care. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech and whether you believe his actions were treasonous has little to do with the reality of the situation. I think freedom of speech is far more important than your views of what is or isn't treasonous.
 

You stated you were ignorant of a subject.

I merely explained why.

It hasn't changed. The definition is the same as it has always been. If the liberals of today are not of that definition then they aren't liberals. It's as simple as that.

Amazing how fast you can read.

What did Hayek say was the natural consequence of placing the power needed to implement socialist reforms in the hands of government, then?

In other words, you haven't read the book, so your claim that the definition of the word, which you haven't supplied, hasn't changed is clearly a mere restatement of your self-confession of your ignorance, and nothing more.

Nah, I'll stick with the dictionary definition. Thanks, though.

You mean the defition that's changed over the years but exists as a snapshot in the dictionary you happen to own...but which you won't provide for our review and ridicule?

Do you spend a lot of time in the conspiracy theories section?

No, there's more of you people out here.

You can say that your opinion is the truth all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's only your own opinion.

Yes. Naturally. The fact that it's an opinion automaticly precludes any possibility that it might also be true, since you don't agree with it.

Like I said, you don't even know me. And yet you still try to tell me who my heroes are. The funny thing is that it just makes you look like a partisan hack and nothing more.

I don't know who your heroes are. I"m listing the usual suspects that liberals of today refuse to mention.

You've never read 1984, either, have you? What about Brave New World?

Life is too complex to be defined by stereotypes.

No, it's not. Lots and lots of people enjoy living like robots.

Most of them voted for Obama.

Their hero.

The Messiah was at some Town Hall Revival 'round about here the other day. Not one person asked The Messiah a question critical of his abysmal performance to date.

Robots.

I don't have one.

You didn't vote for Obama?
 
You stated you were ignorant of a subject.

I merely explained why.

If you are going to use lame insults at least own up to them.
Amazing how fast you can read.

What did Hayek say was the natural consequence of placing the power needed to implement socialist reforms in the hands of government, then?

In other words, you haven't read the book, so your claim that the definition of the word, which you haven't supplied, hasn't changed is clearly a mere restatement of your self-confession of your ignorance, and nothing more.

I didn't bother to read it because I put far more stock in a dictionary than what an economist/philosopher has to say.

You mean the defition that's changed over the years but exists as a snapshot in the dictionary you happen to own...but which you won't provide for our review and ridicule?

I didn't realize that the definition of liberal as shown in any dictionary was such an obscure object that I had to provide it to you and that you couldn't look it up yourself.

No, there's more of you people out here.

Meaning what exactly? I'm not the one coming up with absurd conspiracy theories about how evil liberals are.

Yes. Naturally. The fact that it's an opinion automaticly precludes any possibility that it might also be true, since you don't agree with it.

No, I'm saying that your opinion carries as much weight as any opinion does. Just because you think it's true doesn't automatically mean that it is. Keep trying, though.

I don't know who your heroes are. I"m listing the usual suspects that liberals of today refuse to mention.

You've never read 1984, either, have you? What about Brave New World?

The usual suspects that are based on stereotypical views that you have about liberals.


No, it's not. Lots and lots of people enjoy living like robots.

Most of them voted for Obama.

Their hero.

I fail to see how voting for Obama means that one holds him as a hero. Admittedly there are people who view him this way and I think it's quite obvious that they are idiots. The man hasn't even proven himself as to how good of a President he will be.

The Messiah was at some Town Hall Revival 'round about here the other day. Not one person asked The Messiah a question critical of his abysmal performance to date.

Robots.

It's funny because the only people I've seen call him Messiah are people like yourself. Perhaps you should question your own trumped up views of him rather than the people who voted for him.

You didn't vote for Obama?

Yes, I did vote for him. That doesn't mean that he's my Messiah. If that's really your argument, then there's no use in continuing this conversation because you are obviously too blinded by your own hyper-partisan views.
 
I'm not a big fan of Pelosi either, I was just illustrating that I think the term far too often gets thrown around and assigned to people just because one doesn't agree with their political views. That's just stupid to me.
I agree with the premise, I too don't think standing in the way of an idealogical agenda is treason and the term shouldn't be used as a political tool by either side, all I am getting at is Pelosi's statement is dangerously close in this instance.
 
If you are going to use lame insults at least own up to them.

It's not an insult to point out someone's ignorance of a topic.

If you tried to drag me into a discussion of the relative merits of various power tools and other sex toys, I'd have to claim ignorance of the subject.


I didn't bother to read it because I put far more stock in a dictionary than what an economist/philosopher has to say.

In other words, you didn't want to read a book written in 1946 that discussed the contempory usage of the word at that time as compared to both earlier times and today, because, by golly, you know what you know and you're not about let anything like a mere fact change that.

I didn't realize that the definition of liberal as shown in any dictionary was such an obscure object that I had to provide it to you and that you couldn't look it up yourself.

I know how to define liberal: ( * )

How do you define it?

Meaning what exactly? I'm not the one coming up with absurd conspiracy theories about how evil liberals are.

That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a moral assessment of their policies and goals.

No, I'm saying that your opinion carries as much weight as any opinion does. Just because you think it's true doesn't automatically mean that it is. Keep trying, though.

Then again, if you think it's wrong, you probably are.

The usual suspects that are based on stereotypical views that you have about liberals.

That, and direction empirical evidence.

I fail to see how voting for Obama means that one holds him as a hero.

Why else would someone cast a vote for someone so clearly and completely incorrect?

The man hasn't even proven himself as to how good of a President he will be.

Yes, he has.

He's not going to be good at all.

In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement.
He can't talk without a teleprompter.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes.

etc etc etc.

Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.

He's a Democrat.
 
Yes, he has.

He's not going to be good at all.

In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement.
He can't talk without a teleprompter.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes.

etc etc etc.

Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.

He's a Democrat..


Well put.


Deception
 
I agree with the premise, I too don't think standing in the way of an idealogical agenda is treason and the term shouldn't be used as a political tool by either side, all I am getting at is Pelosi's statement is dangerously close in this instance.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Just throwing that out there... I'm not sure if perjury constitutes treason. I don't think the statement in question constitutes treason or perjury, but a lot of the attempts by the left to overthrow the Constitution do.
 
Last edited:
It's not an insult to point out someone's ignorance of a topic.

If you tried to drag me into a discussion of the relative merits of various power tools and other sex toys, I'd have to claim ignorance of the subject.




In other words, you didn't want to read a book written in 1946 that discussed the contempory usage of the word at that time as compared to both earlier times and today, because, by golly, you know what you know and you're not about let anything like a mere fact change that.



I know how to define liberal: ( * )

How do you define it?



That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a moral assessment of their policies and goals.



Then again, if you think it's wrong, you probably are.



That, and direction empirical evidence.



Why else would someone cast a vote for someone so clearly and completely incorrect?



Yes, he has.

He's not going to be good at all.

In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement.
He can't talk without a teleprompter.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes.

etc etc etc.

Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.

He's a Democrat.

Well, thank you for confirming that you are a hyper-partisan hack and not worthy of engaging in discussion.
 
It's not an insult to point out someone's ignorance of a topic.

If you tried to drag me into a discussion of the relative merits of various power tools and other sex toys, I'd have to claim ignorance of the subject.




In other words, you didn't want to read a book written in 1946 that discussed the contempory usage of the word at that time as compared to both earlier times and today, because, by golly, you know what you know and you're not about let anything like a mere fact change that.



I know how to define liberal: ( * )

How do you define it?



That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a moral assessment of their policies and goals.



Then again, if you think it's wrong, you probably are.



That, and direction empirical evidence.



Why else would someone cast a vote for someone so clearly and completely incorrect?



Yes, he has.

He's not going to be good at all.

In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing. Much of the money hasn't actually been spent yet, most of it still waiting for programatic disbursement. So saying the expenditures have "done nothing" is fairly misleading on your part.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him. Whether or not he's actually embarrassed is a personal matter. But you go on and read his mind all you want.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush. That is a load of crap. Substantiate this.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement. As well he should have, it was a terrible idea. It was offered up, loudly rejected, and quietly taken off the table.
He can't talk without a teleprompter. Oh horse****. Please don't be obtuse.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers. Once again, more unsubstantiated drivel.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending. Way to spin the hell out of the idea that you have different thoughts about what is the best economic strategy for this nation right now, but only yours are right. I suppose with this mindset, you probably should be putting words in his mouth and misrepresenting his position.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes. More extrapolation from the peanut gallery.

etc etc etc. Your partisan rhetoric machine run out of hot air already?

Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.

He's a Democrat.

Good lord, can you mix any more dishonesty in with your bull****?
 
Last edited:
Just throwing that out there... I'm not sure if perjury constitutes treason. I don't think the statement in question constitutes treason or perjury, but a lot of the attempts by the left to overthrow the Constitution do.
That's the thing, what they are doing is illegal, just not treason, derilection of duty is a reasonable charge, as well as malfeasance, but we do need to start holding those that abuse the constitution legally acountable.
 
That's the thing, what they are doing is illegal, just not treason, derilection of duty is a reasonable charge, as well as malfeasance, but we do need to start holding those that abuse the constitution legally acountable.

Well, the problem is proving that they're knowingly trying to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to go ahead and assume that they've all read Article I, Section 8, so I'm not sure how they could not know it but perhaps some of them haven't read it?

Another key point is that we have a people willing to elect these people over and over and over again.
 
She's consistent. She, like most in Congress, is a Globalist,
therefore she believes that nations are an obsolete concept
that only the rube class believes in. Illegals are, to her, fellow
Globalists knocking down the walls of Nationalist Oppression.
 
Well, the problem is proving that they're knowingly trying to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to go ahead and assume that they've all read Article I, Section 8, so I'm not sure how they could not know it but perhaps some of them haven't read it?

Another key point is that we have a people willing to elect these people over and over and over again.
I was reading the book "Do as I say Not as I do" some time back and it was showing the "contract labor" issues the Pelosis have in their businesses, it's sick, that is really all I need to know personally to realize she isn't stupid or simply mistaken, but has a vested interest in violating laws when they are disadvantageous to her.
 
If they don't want to obey the nation's laws, and invade in violation thereof, they should be marched back home at bayonet point.

What part of "illegal" is confusing you?

Where does it seem I am confused? My statements are clearly saying that the process should be changed so it is easier for immigrants to obtain work visa's. I never said anything about them being able to break the law.
 
Where does it seem I am confused? My statements are clearly saying that the process should be changed so it is easier for immigrants to obtain work visa's. I never said anything about them being able to break the law.

You failed to state that their illegal asses need to be sent home.

Immediately.

You were just whining about how unfair it is that current laws are sooooooooooooo difficult for the pooooooooor widdle invaders to obey.

I don't waste patience on that nonsense.

Arrest them, fingerprint and DNA them, heave their butts back over the fence tell them they can never come back, and then throw their employers in jail.

Illegal invasion problem solved.
 
It is anti-American to encourage illegal immigration. Which is basically encouraging another country to invade yours seeing how the vast majority of the 20 plus million illegals in this country are from Mexico.

Invade? We have an 8% unemployment rate. These immigrants are not plotting to take jobs away from U.S. citizens -- you make it seem as though it is a war, that promoting a change in immigration policy will make it acceptable for other countries to "invade" our land. I don't think Mexico is planning to start any wars with the US anytime soon ...
 
Invade? We have an 8% unemployment rate. These immigrants are not plotting to take jobs away from U.S. citizens -- you make it seem as though it is a war, that promoting a change in immigration policy will make it acceptable for other countries to "invade" our land. I don't think Mexico is planning to start any wars with the US anytime soon ...

You have to understand jamesrage's point of view on this. It's a bit more pronounced than some others. He believes that 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country constitutes an actual invasion. He has a theory which he will explain. I don't agree with the use of the word invasion, but I do agree that the problem is huge and needs attention. James can actually explain his reasoning for wording his views on the matter quite well, we just may not always agree with him on how he does it.
 
It is anti-American to encourage illegal immigration. Which is basically encouraging another country to invade yours seeing how the vast majority of the 20 plus million illegals in this country are from Mexico.

I wonder if they, trying to sell Amnesty for the 20 million, will use the argument they are doing jobs Americans won't do?

Yahoo!

.
 
Three (California, New York, Illinois) of the top five states with illegal immigrants are now fiscally bankrupt. Texas and Florida are on the edge.

Coincidence?
 
Invade has multiple meanings but they all basically state to intrude or encroach upon.

invade definition | Dictionary.com
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.
invasion definition | Dictionary.com

4. infringement by intrusion.


What are you going to argue next, are you going to argue that illegal aliens shouldn't be called illegals aliens because they are not from space?



These immigrants are not plotting to take jobs away from U.S. citizens

When they underbid Americans for jobs then that is what they do.Illegals are in no position to demand fair wages and benefits, this is why scum hire illegals.

-- you make it seem as though it is a war,
I said nothing about war.
that promoting a change in immigration policy will make it acceptable for other countries to "invade" our land.

Sitting there making false claims that it is American to **** all over our immigration laws is not calling for a change.What she is doing is encouraging these people to violate our immigration laws by basically saying we should turn a blind eye to these people who, because if it is anti-American then it should be disregarded.

I don't think Mexico is planning to start any wars with the US anytime soon

Invasions do not always require a war for something to be an invasion,see the top of this post.Mexico encourages this invasion because these people send money money home to their families in Mexico. Mexico's population is 111,211,789 ,Almost 20 million of their population has trespassed into our country illegally.
 
You failed to state that their illegal asses need to be sent home.

Immediately.

You were just whining about how unfair it is that current laws are sooooooooooooo difficult for the pooooooooor widdle invaders to obey.

I don't waste patience on that nonsense.

Arrest them, fingerprint and DNA them, heave their butts back over the fence tell them they can never come back,

Well said.


and then throw their employers in jail.

Illegal invasion problem solved.

Another thing that should happen is make those who hire illegals subject to the assets forfeiture laws that apply to drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and use their money for illegal purposes.
 
You failed to state that their illegal asses need to be sent home.

Immediately.

You were just whining about how unfair it is that current laws are sooooooooooooo difficult for the pooooooooor widdle invaders to obey.

I don't waste patience on that nonsense.

Arrest them, fingerprint and DNA them, heave their butts back over the fence tell them they can never come back, and then throw their employers in jail.

Illegal invasion problem solved.

So you suggest we spend billions of dollars, hundreds thousands of man hours, close down hundreds of business, and increase our prison volume?

Brilliant idea. :roll:

I also find it amusing that you think the above will solve the problem because the above is exactly what happens today. The illegal immigrants that are arrested and deported just turn right back around and enter the US again and find a new employer.

Personally I would rather make work visa's easier to obtain to allow immigrants to legally work, pay taxes, increase our economy, international relations, and lower criminal activity. But that's just me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom