Posted on 01/15/2004 7:07:05 AM PST by cricket
In addition, there are a litany of other facts on that website. Can you respond to any of them?
This is a silly statement since true Christians believe Jesus is God. Therefore, since Bush calls himself a Christian, his statement is irreconilable to true and historic Christian belief. No way around it. You can't win this point so move on.
gubamyster has already provided sources here are some more. The pros and cons are easy to find with google and searches here at Free Republic. Depends upon what is meant by "primary beneficiaries?" Is that the problem?
BTW, www.cis.org has an About page and google can be used to establish their credibility. You will find them used by the mainstream media for example as well as conservative groups. google for, "Center for Immigration Studies".
Here is one source for stats. There are studies for most immigrant groups. This one is for immigrants from Mexico the group that's most numerous and talked about. The Center for Immigration Studies' report at
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/mexico.pdf
"Even after welfare reform, welfare use among Mexican immigrant households remains much higher than that of natives. An estimated 33.9 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 24.9 percent of those headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program. In contrast, 14.8 percent of native households used welfare. Moreover, Mexican immigrant welfare use remains much higher than that of natives, even among Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for many years (see Figure 1)." [end excerpt]
googling, immigrants welfare, turns up hundreds of thousands of hits. The above is one. Some other immigrant groups have similar stats. It's been discussed pro and con here in the past. google,
immigrants welfare site:www.freerepublic.com
Dave S, You referred to Congressman Tancredo as a bigot. Do you have sources that suggest that in fact he is a bigot? TIA.
Perhaps if you took the time to clearly read. The link on this thread linked to a post on another thread. That post had 2 links. One to the Stix article & another to a CIS article. Please follow directions.
Your links in #37 that you are so proud of go to a four year old article by the White Supremisist Stix...
Do you have any source for this claim?
and a chart that someone posted.
You must not have looked closely at the chart & the footnotes, because it clearly references CIS.
I still dont see squat by your Center for Immigration Studies and who they hell are they, a guy with an address and a fax machine?
Your lack of knowledge of CIS proves your lack of knowledge or research into immigration (both illegal & legal) matters. Perhaps you should spend some time at their site before further exposing shallowness on the subject.
What type of logic are you using to reach this preposterous conclusion from the below facts?
"Even after welfare reform, welfare use among Mexican immigrant households remains much higher than that of natives. An estimated 33.9 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 24.9 percent of those headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program. In contrast, 14.8 percent of native households used welfare. Moreover, Mexican immigrant welfare use remains much higher than that of natives, even among Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for many years (see Figure 1)." [end excerpt]
Conscientious Americans have slowed or stopped reproducing, the illegals contribute about 1/2 million babies a year here, sure solid voting base. Funny how all the Latino's in Chicago are democrats though.
Is this really what Republicanism has come down to? Basing policy on "demographic phalanxes"?
Yes he did because Ozzie was the news, the buzz. More people were there to see ozzie than Bush. He spiced up his presentation by playing to Ozzie. It was obvious that Ozzie was going to play.
Thanks for the very interesting article. Bookmarked for future reference.
I already did, exmarine with short memory. Bush did not invite Ozzie Osbourne to anything much less to the White House for Dinner. Article on home page of this "fantastic" website reports that Bush did...and that rumour popped up over two years ago. I will say it again, the blonde reporter from Fox invited Osbourne to a White House Correspondents Dinner (that is the White House reporters) that was held at a Washington area hotel. Thousands of people in attendance as it was a fund raiser for charity. Only two connections to the White House: 1) The reporters, and 2) the President is invited to attend to be roasted and then he speaks. But its not Bush's Dinner. Its not the White House and Bush doesnt invite anyone. Those things are called facts, not the rumour and half truth that your fundi website presents.
Explain the Triune God? If you can, then you're superior to all the worlds theologians. If thats the case maybe you are God, heh?
So what if the Muslims dont accept Christ literally as God, some Christians dont. Also Jews are supposed to believe in the same God as the Christians and they dont accept Jesus...so are you saying that when they address their father they are talking to the wind and nothing else.
Perhaps you should convince me that they have even as much credibility as La Raza. All it takes these days is a telephone number and a fax machine and you are 501-c3.
So if you build a better "mousetrap" they will come? Bull. You dont just enunicate your principles and expect them to be communicated by the press. You have to advertise via paid media and you have to pick places to visit and issues to push. You dont just say Im for limited government and the world will rush to your door. You have to pick out your target audiences that you want to reach, you have to select your message, you have to determine how to reach this market and you have to determine which issues have salience to the group that you are attempting to reach (e.g., you dont spend your limited time discussing the need for elimination of the AMT to a group of low income senior citizens).
Good point; and Morris no doubt frames his reference from his Democrat orientation.
May be naive here, but actually think Bush is framing this first, from what he thinks is the better and 'higher' perspective ie first, from doing what he thinks is right and right for America.
He would rather tackle this than for the Dems taking their turn at it; which in the end would prove to be a sinister, corrupted approach. . .designed, from their perspective, no doubt as a guarantee for the Hispanic vote.
So while I do not think Bush is doing this at least, first and foremost, for the Hispanic vote; he certainly is aware of the political possibilities.
He certainly recognizes as well, that there are no guarantees this will serve Republican interests and should this get passed; he knows it will not serve Republican politics exclusively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.