Posted on 03/09/2006 9:02:17 AM PST by prairiebreeze
Must be a typo let me correct it for ya
"vocal anti illegal immigration folks"
No need to thank me, I do it all the time.
There is no one more devoted to our Nation on the FR. This does not equate to being moronic however and believing that we should spit in the face of one of our best allies in the world. This nation has been a strong ally of ours since its founding 30+ years ago.
The anti-Globalists are the nutcases who demonstrate and riot at international conferences. True nationalists support deals which are in our national interest which this definitely was. True nationalists support those nations which support us we don't insult them and treat them like enemies. Only morons do that.
This has certainly not strengthened any view of our integrity and has shone that The Party of Treason and panicked GOPers have none.
Surely you are not so clueless as to believe that UAE has not been a great asset in our military efforts. If so you need to listen to people who are informed NOT Schumer and REid.
Thanks RightWhale... I know I have looked! :)
I find it a useful acid test to point out that whne the borders are controlled we will need greatly increased legal immigration from Mexico. If I see a horrified reaction,
I question their motives for opposing illegal immigration.
Are you for President Bush's amnesty guest worker plan too? Or would you rather see our borders defended? Be careful, you might be described as a useful idiot for refusing to go along with the breakdown of our national soveriegnty...
Offered here again for your enjoyment; if you repeat a pantload often enough people will start to think it's dinner.
Do you have a point? I'm not going to grope around in your thought processes trying to figure out your motivations. Speak plainly or go somewhere that thrives on innuendo.
Please stop with the LIES. There have been no boats rammed into tankers in the UAE.
Of course without LIES the antis will have nothing to say but the silence will be sweet.
"I'm not worried about it, I'm more concerned about our sovereignty and security. Next to that, money means nothing."
While you are quite correct to value sovereignty and security I would suggest that those are both ties to wealth and that is tied to trade.
LOL!
That one is spamming the thread with her utter ignorance.
Really? Are their leaders elected democratically? Do they have freedom and equal rights for all their citizens? Do they allow women to control their own destiny? Do they have freedom of speech?
OK, I thought about it. Not one of those points has anything to do with being an ally.
Think about it.
We shouldn't be giving away the keys to our ports in order to gain some limited help in the War on Terror. We didn't have to give our allies in WW2 control of U.S. national security interests. They were just our allies because they believed in the same cause.
Maybe the real problem is that we have to bribe an Arab sheikhdom in order to gain their "friendship"...
I presume there was a point in posting that. But not likely one that makes much sense.
Great point. Thanks.
Yes, you said there would be no meaningful legislation, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC doesn't want it.
See how that works?
Again,The latest poll by Quinnipiac University found that 88 percent of those asked think illegal immigration is a serious problem. Put another way, 94 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Democrats see illegal immigration as a serious issue .
Go ahead, twist away.
Yes, I guess the American people still do have a say-so on occasion. (At least, that's what I always thought the House of Representatives was for...)
What I have learned here just reaffirms what I already knew. There is a large number of so-called conservatives who are happy to follow the leadership of the Party of Treason/Treason Media and who do not care in the slightest that they are led by the noses like cattle into error.
So, now that I have asked you to back up your first claim, you're changing the claim, do I have that right?
I do recall you saying that the UAE had few terror ties, etc...
Again, I never said any such thing.
And whatever this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584285/posts is, I'm not on that thread, so I have no idea why you posted it.
OH YEAH! I remember the other one... that Bush had no role in this port deal and didn't know of it. Yah. Now, I couldn't find proof outright proof, but COME ON. I don't have the links here at work, but I have gathered enough evidence on my own to think that he *was* involved. And knew. That was the big one. How could he *not* know?
Good lord; that is W E A K. Which is it, you have proof (which is what you said in the beginning) or you don't.
BTW, if you *think* one way and I *think* another, that doesn't make ME wrong, you know? You could be the one who is wrong, right?
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.