You want to know who the REAL PARTY OF NO is?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Desert Eagle
  • Start date Start date
D

Desert Eagle

Guest
The Democrats!

No troops for the border.

Democrats stop bid to send 6,000 troops to border

WASHINGTON
 
I don't know what the $2 Billion was for specifically.

Retarded not to send more National Guard troops to Arizona though. That state is a leaky bucket. Would be much better than the policies the state is trying.
 
Because the Democrats were going to Filibuster it, because they are the "Party of NO!"
 
Considering there are about 300,000 threads in this forum on the topic...you could search for it rather than Abombing this thread.
 
What obvious political double-speak for "I WANT MORE BACON!"

So when is there enough border security for us to be able to deal with other avenues of immigration reform? Why can't we do both at the same time? I'll tell you why, because the GOP doesn't want to deal with immigration and would rather kick the can down the road while placating the base that can only see military force as the only option
 
No, it means ... What are we going to do with the tens of millions of illegals ALREADY HERE?
 
for once you say something i can absolutely agree with...

throwing more soldiers onto border security duty on its own isn't going to do a whole lot to fix the problem, it'll just change the way people enter the country illegally. we need real reform in our national immigration policies.
 
read it again, he's saying the GOP will not discuss what to do about the illegals already here until they're satisfied the border is secure enough.

it's like saying you refuse to clean up the gulf oil spill until the hole is plugged
 
At least they are willing to secure the border. Even if they pussy out and go with Obama and the other neo-communists and give them amnesty, it's still a hell of a lot better than giving them amnesty and not closing the border.
 
Yeah, but to be honest, that was taken out of context. He was talking about white women.
 
What does reform mean though? How will reform stop the flow? That's the problem with the reform argument. How does it solve the issue beyond sounding good as it bounces around in ones head?

Plugging the border up does solve one part of the issue immediately. Once we can actually get a decent handle on the border and turn the flood into atleast a trickle, then we can worry about handling the other issues pertaining to illegal immigration.

Simply changing the definition of illegal immigration through "reform" doesn't solve the issue.
 
Back
Top