• 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!

House passes $694 million border bill

I was not claiming tribal affiliation. Perhaps you missed that.

I am native American because my parents were Americans. My wife is a naturalized American. My children are native Americans.

I know many of you hate that you live in this country and look to tyrants to change it more to your liking. I do not know why you hate your neighbors but it is clear that you do.

sounds more like you hate being an american citizen and you're ashamed of your European ancestors

Yes. I am native American. You are too.

It is a goofy idea that someone born here to American parents does not consider himself or herself a native American. Members of tribes are not native Americans. They are members of non-American tribes.

Of course! People who have lived in America all their life and whose ancestors have lived in America for thousands of years are not "native americans". They're not even american
 
immigrants =/= invaders. we need to fix the system and bring the underground economy into the light.
The invaders are illegal aliens. And they are invading. They need to be repelled, by force if necessary. If they cannot be then every one of them needs to be bussed to a wealthy democratic neighborhood. Then we need to build a wall around them and not let any of them out.
 
Go back far enough, and there are no natives of the Americas, nor of Europe, nor of Asia. We're all natives of Africa.
 
I am stating that you are not a "native American", you are rather an American (US citizen) that holds to Nativist ideology.....which you yourself describe and promote on a daily basis.....so get your terminology correct.
I was born in the United States of America to parents who were Americans. So I am a native American.

I understand that you hate your country and you hate the voters. So you will make every effort to import, through legal and illegal means, a new group of people that you intend to make into citizens so one party rule can become a new reality.

I do not care what you call youself. It is possible that you view yourself as un-American.
 
The invaders are illegal aliens. And they are invading. They need to be repelled, by force if necessary. If they cannot be then every one of them needs to be bussed to a wealthy democratic neighborhood. Then we need to build a wall around them and not let any of them out.
Spoken like a true Nativist.
 
immigrants =/= invaders. we need to fix the system and bring the underground economy into the light.

Stop playing with the semantics. No one is talking about immigrants here. We're talking about illegal aliens, who are indeed invaders. The only fix is to disenfranchise totally all those here illegally.
 
Um, the term "Americas" existed long before the US was created, and describes North, Central and South Americas....in which the native peoples of the North, in what is now the US, are referred to as "Native Americans".

You don't get to change our common language to suit you ideology.
Sure I do. We all do. Do you believe that languages are static?


Do Mexicans consider themselves to be native Americans? Or Mexicans. Ditto for all other countries on both continents...
 
Um, the term "Americas" existed long before the US was created, and describes North, Central and South Americas....in which the native peoples of the North, in what is now the US, are referred to as "Native Americans".

You don't get to change our common language to suit you ideology.

The "Americas" never meant "American", nor were the citizens of Central, South or any other part of the Americas referred to as Americans. The later refers to the citizens of the United States of America. Stop trying to rewrite history to suit your PC view.
 
I was born in the United States of America to parents who were Americans. So I am a native American.

I understand that you hate your country and you hate the voters. So you will make every effort to import, through legal and illegal means, a new group of people that you intend to make into citizens so one party rule can become a new reality.

I do not care what you call youself. It is possible that you view yourself as un-American.
My clarifying your misuse of the English language does not in any manner display a hatred of the US, on the contrary, your Nativist ideology does in fact cause you to spew hatred upon the very action that caused your ancestors to be here.....immigration. This hypocrisy at the base of Nativism never seems to be realized by them...you included.
 
My clarifying your misuse of the English language does not in any manner display a hatred of the US, on the contrary, your Nativist ideology does in fact cause you to spew hatred upon the very action that caused your ancestors to be here.....immigration. This hypocrisy at the base of Nativism never seems to be realized by them...you included.

It's your misuse of the historical language. Examine your own hypocrisy.
 
The "Americas" never meant "American", nor were the citizens of Central, South or any other part of the Americas referred to as Americans.
Sure, Central Americans were never referred to as such, nor are South Americans.
The later refers to the citizens of the United States of America. Stop trying to rewrite history to suit your PC view.
Of course....gawd.....or someone else of his/her stature declared at some point that "American" is the exclusive reference for US citizens!

Oh the hubris, the self-importance, the egotism, the pomposity, the superciliousness, the superiority......
 
The "Americas" never meant "American", nor were the citizens of Central, South or any other part of the Americas referred to as Americans. The later refers to the citizens of the United States of America. Stop trying to rewrite history to suit your PC view.

American - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: a person born, raised, or living in the U.S.

: a person born, raised, or living in North America or South America
 
Sure I do. We all do. Do you believe that languages are static?
Of course they are not static, but since you already understood and rejected the common understanding of what Native American is, you don't get to then appropriate it when an existing, accurate definition exists that fits your self described notions, ie Nativist.


Do Mexicans consider themselves to be native Americans? Or Mexicans. Ditto for all other countries on both continents...
They by and large Mestizo, they have the right to claim they are Americans, from the aspect that their ancestors lived and migrated throughout North and Central America before the US was formed. The term America was first applied to South America.
 
The invaders are illegal aliens. And they are invading. They need to be repelled, by force if necessary. If they cannot be then every one of them needs to be bussed to a wealthy democratic neighborhood. Then we need to build a wall around them and not let any of them out.

They aren't invading. They're being used by big ag, the meat packing industry, and restaurants to make your food cheap. In return, they get mostly scorn, much like your ancestors and mine got when they came here back in the day. Eventually, their descendants will be as American as you and I. Then, unfortunately, they'll probably go online and bitch about the next group of immigrants.
 
Stop playing with the semantics. No one is talking about immigrants here. We're talking about illegal aliens, who are indeed invaders. The only fix is to disenfranchise totally all those here illegally.

I don't agree.
 
If a President were announce his intention to use an EO to declare that all left-handed, green-eyed males are required to sit on the left side of the bus, would you still wonder about the ensuing uproar?

:doh

I question the sudden "uproar" from the Right because they never seem to have a problem with such pronouncements when they come from a Republican President. And again, it's not the first time this or any U.S. President has threatened to exercise his veto power if a bill came across his desk he didn't like. Folks should stop acting as if this has only happened with this President.
 
:doh

I question the sudden "uproar" from the Right because they never seem to have a problem with such pronouncements when they come from a Republican President.

And again, it's not the first time this or any U.S. President has threatened to exercise his veto power if a bill came across his desk he didn't like. Folks should stop acting as if this has only happened with this President.

I apologize for talking about EO's. I was in error in bringing that up.

I have no problem with a President threatening to exercise his veto power. The veto is a power granted to him by the Constitution. But, as far as I know, there isn't any uproar over him threatening to use this power...at least, on a national political level.

In regard to your conversation with Ockham, which I jumped into, my take is that threatening to veto legislation can be a two-edged sword but that Obama is pretty safe in wielding it because he has Reid in the Senate to run interference for him. But...if the Senate falls into the Republican's hands, Obama may find his threatened vetoes could turn around on him. In such a situation, I think we'll see less of these threats and more cooperation from him with the Republicans.

But his base won't like that at all.
 
I apologize for talking about EO's. I was in error in bringing that up.

I have no problem with a President threatening to exercise his veto power. The veto is a power granted to him by the Constitution. But, as far as I know, there isn't any uproar over him threatening to use this power...at least, on a national political level.

In regard to your conversation with Ockham, which I jumped into, my take is that threatening to veto legislation can be a two-edged sword but that Obama is pretty safe in wielding it because he has Reid in the Senate to run interference for him. But...if the Senate falls into the Republican's hands, Obama may find his threatened vetoes could turn around on him. In such a situation, I think we'll see less of these threats and more cooperation from him with the Republicans.

But his base won't like that at all.

If Republicans take the Senate and hold onto the House, the President would have not choice but to carry threw with his veto threat(s). Republicans, of course, would try to paint the President as failing to do "the will of the people" or even pair their arguments down to specific segments of the population, i.e., the poor, the elderly, etc., as they've done in the past. But because ALL Presidents have the power of the bully pulpit, he can change the perspective of the national landscape at a much faster, much broader pace than individual power players from within the GOP. (Of course, the same would occur if the situations were reversed, i.e., Democratic Congress, Republican President).

What can I say; it's politics.

Sidenote: Apology accepted. :)
 
If Republicans take the Senate and hold onto the House, the President would have not choice but to carry threw with his veto threat(s). Republicans, of course, would try to paint the President as failing to do "the will of the people" or even pair their arguments down to specific segments of the population, i.e., the poor, the elderly, etc., as they've done in the past. But because ALL Presidents have the power of the bully pulpit, he can change the perspective of the national landscape at a much faster, much broader pace than individual power players from within the GOP. (Of course, the same would occur if the situations were reversed, i.e., Democratic Congress, Republican President).

What can I say; it's politics.

Sidenote: Apology accepted. :)

The problem Obama would have in going through with his vetoes is that...well...there would be a reason the Republicans take the Senate. Namely, that the people wanted them to. He wouldn't be hurting himself. He's a lame duck. But he WOULD be hurting his Party. Big time.

In any case, I don't think Obama has the balls to take that kind of responsibility upon himself without cover...like he has now.
 
My clarifying your misuse of the English language does not in any manner display a hatred of the US, on the contrary, your Nativist ideology does in fact cause you to spew hatred upon the very action that caused your ancestors to be here.....immigration. This hypocrisy at the base of Nativism never seems to be realized by them...you included.
I have correctly used language. I do not bow down to the politically correct leftists who have so damaged the country.

Immigration is not invasion. One is legal and is done for the good of the current citizens. The second, invasion, is not legal and is done for the good of the illegal alien invaders.

I believe you hate your neighbors and want them replaced.

You still have trouble getting things right, don't you? This is not about immigrants. It is about the citizens being overrun by invaders. The statists in both parties support it. This nation belongs to the citizens. It does not belong to the invaders. Nor does it belong to the statists.
 
Sure, Central Americans were never referred to as such, nor are South Americans. Of course....gawd.....or someone else of his/her stature declared at some point that "American" is the exclusive reference for US citizens!

Oh the hubris, the self-importance, the egotism, the pomposity, the superciliousness, the superiority......
We know what you call them. What do they call themselves? Did the Aztecs refer to themselves as native Americans?

Why do you care? I am a native American. You are something else.
 
Back
Top Bottom