Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for more t

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for mor

    a breaking story this morning on the topic of the border:

    the cartels are engaging in piracy vs us pleasure boats on falcon lake near zapata, texas

    My Way News - Pirates threaten boats on US-Mexico border lake

    what's obama's answer to the cartels, does he even have a talking point?

    why did secty of state hillary blame mexican drug violence on aspects of american culture?

    U.S. shares blame for Mexico drug violence, Clinton says - CNN.com

    we got a bunch of weirdos in the white house

    hillary's now one of em

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for mor

    hopeless eric holder is now challenging as illegal an immigration reform signed into law by then governor of arizona JANET NAPOLITANO

    DOJ: Ariz. law Napolitano signed is illegal - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

    obama's dhs secty, his "point person on immigration," must be a racist like the majority of arizonans

    this admin is pusillanimously political and utterly incoherent

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for mor

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Are you so delusional you think the only meaning of engage is opening fire?
    Okay, pray tell, give us another meaning -- within the context of the quote I was commenting on:

    Engage =

    This should be interesting...

  4. #24
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for mor

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Okay, pray tell, give us another meaning -- within the context of the quote I was commenting on:

    Engage =

    This should be interesting...
    Uh, it's pretty obvious that forces can "engage" in ways that don't involve shooting people.

    If the troops spot some people crossing the border and walk over to detain them, that constitutes an engagement.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 05-29-10 at 05:52 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for mor

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If the troops spot some people crossing the border and walk over to detain them, that constitutes an engagement.
    can you believe you'd actually have to explain something like that?

    LOL!

    i admire your patience, you probably raised lots of kids...

  6. #26
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas Perry's request goes ignored for mor

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    How so?



    A lot? So, you're saying less people, less federal income tax. That only covers individuals. What about the businesses and corporations in those states? Can't those big farms and corn fields carry the load? Oops...





    So your point here is that these rankings may very from year to year depending on public works projects etc. Fair enough. But vary how much?




    New York gets $0.79 for every $1 they contribute...

    South Dakota get $1.53 for every $1 they contribute...

    Hmmm. Not sure what your point is, but it seems like SD owes NY a huge thank you.

    The one thing this chart tells me (which I already knew) the majority of the people on welfare are of a light complexion and live in the South. The myth of urban welfare mom was created to bring the old southern Dems over to the GOP.




    Unfortunately, your thin argument does really nothing to support that.
    The urban welfare mom is no myth. It was created by a brilliant federal law that would not provide welfare to families who had a man in the house because he had the responsibility to care for his family. The rest is all history. Do you know anything about the south? We have a large percentage of minorities including heavy populations of such in most large cities in the south. Guess which way they usually vote? Yep, farming is big in the south and farm subisidies are big throughout the country. Those subsidies are what keep food prices low for everyone in the country. We should not have made farmers dependent on these subsidies. Just goes to show you that just like welfare, the government has done a horrible job of managing a program. Both programs have become political payoff schemes. The $1.53 for South Dakota represents very little money compared to the amount given to New York. I am talking about total money. There is no way the government could afford giviing any where near that much to New York. You cannot make a linear comparison between the two states.
    Last edited by jambalaya; 06-01-10 at 10:26 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •