Skip to comments.
Nadler Promotes Homosexual Immigration Privileges
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 9/23/02
| Jeff Johnson
Posted on 09/23/2002 6:34:43 PM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
09/23/2002 6:34:43 PM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Nadler is an idiot!
2
posted on
09/23/2002 6:39:00 PM PDT
by
ex-Texan
To: kattracks
Does anyone have an accurate estimate of the number of homosexuals in the USA? Let me put it another way; In 2000, a tad over 100 million people voted and roughly half voted for algore. how many of his 50+million votes were cast by homosexuals. I'm assuming the vast majority of homosexuals are democrats, i just don't know how many and am curious.
3
posted on
09/23/2002 6:41:58 PM PDT
by
umgud
To: kattracks
Why should non-citizens married to citizens recieve more preference than other non-citizen family members of citizens?
To: kattracks
Seems like he could focus on something more productive like sponsoring a bill in Congress modeled on that NY obesity bill.
To: kattracks
I agree that this is a terrible bill, but this Knight character is an idiot. People coming here to marry should not be given the rights they have. It is a bad loophole in the law ripe for abuse. The idea of homosexual men from zimbabwe getting on an American Airlines flight in hopes of finding a sweetie in Topeka is absurd as well.
This guy talks like a autonomatron. What planet is he from?
6
posted on
09/23/2002 6:47:16 PM PDT
by
dogbyte12
To: dogbyte12
To: kattracks
It's sick outside and getting sicker. This should be called the AIDs importation bill.
8
posted on
09/23/2002 6:53:48 PM PDT
by
dennisw
To: umgud
Well, I can give you the figures from the 2000 presidential election exit polls. 4% of the voters admitted being gay to exit pollsters, and of those 70% of them voted for Gore with 25% of them voting for Bush (the other 5% were Nader & other minor party candidates).
Four percent of the total voters in 2000 would be 4,216,493 voters. My personal opinion is that about half of gays would actually admit their gayness to exit pollsters - but that's just my wild guess.
9
posted on
09/23/2002 6:54:48 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
To: dogbyte12
The idea of homosexual men from zimbabwe getting on an American Airlines flight in hopes of finding a sweetie in Topeka is absurd as well. Actually, the article skirted (ahem) around an interesting change in INS practices in recent years. Under a Clinton change, you can be granted asylum in the United States if you declare that you are gay and are from a country that persecutes homosexuals. (Middle eastern and African nations, mostly.) No one made a peep against this when the government started doing it.
10
posted on
09/23/2002 6:56:38 PM PDT
by
ItsJeff
To: ItsJeff
As much as I think homosexuality is wrong, I do have more sympathy with granting asylum to persecuted homosexuals, rather than lovebirds.
As a christian, I believe that if a homosexual is being tortured, it is my responsibility to shield them from that violence. Adultery is a sin as well, and I feel as strongly about how Saudi Arabia treats that one. If I had my druthers, the rest of the world would clean up it's act, so nobody would feel the need to come here other than to vacation.
To: dogbyte12
I agree with you 100%.
12
posted on
09/23/2002 7:02:19 PM PDT
by
ItsJeff
To: kattracks
"The legislation is just common sense," he said.my parents are going to be so disappointed to learn that they failed, utterly, in inculcating commen sense in me.
13
posted on
09/23/2002 7:06:56 PM PDT
by
johnboy
To: glock rocks
Can you imagine what Nadler's coronary arteries look like?
To: glock rocks
he's a little husky
To: redsoxallthewayintwothousand2
He is gravity enhanced ;)
To: kattracks
The homosexual cliche: "We're queer and we're here"
would be then changed to be:
"We're queer and not only are we here, we're also coming"
"The tone and tendency of liberalism...is to attack the institutions of the country under the name of reform and to make war on the manners and customs of the people under the pretext of progress." - Benjamin Disraeli
17
posted on
09/23/2002 7:27:13 PM PDT
by
hosepipe
To: glock rocks
Jerrold the Hutt.
To: kattracks
Let's give Nadler his own little kingdom, Hati. Let him get up close and personal to that green monkey virus.
To: kattracks
"...is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual...in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment"Do they have to have known each other very long, and can they change their minds about the commitment?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson