Skip to comments.
U.S. Social Security for Mexicans?
TownHall.com ^
| Tuesday, January 14, 2003
| by Phyllis Schlafly
Posted on 01/13/2003 9:27:20 PM PST by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: MattinNJ
FWIW, I've had several contractors tell me that the Guatemalans outwork the Mexicans by a mile.How did they compare to the US workers? Oh,,,,,,never mind.
To: WRhine
I suggest that everyone reading this thread forward this article to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and as many in the conservative press (what's left of it) as they can. Done. Also sent it to the President who's proposing this insanity and told him what I think of his idea.
To: ThomasJefferson
How did they compare to the US workers? Oh,,,,,,never mind.True story (although it's probably going to get me flamed big time)-I renovated a house about 7 or 8 years ago. A buddy of mine who was on a weeks vacation (leave?) from the USMC wanted to help out and make some money. I agreed and we went to pick up 4 day laborers (cringe). On the way I happened to remark at how hard these guys work and how incredibly strong they even though they can't weigh more than 120 lbs. My buddy started screaming SEMPER FI and going on and on about how he was going to put these guys to shame. I placed a friendly wager-double or nothing for the days pay if he kept up with a laborer of his choosing. The deal was he had to match the guy stride for stride, bucket for bucket, etc...
At the end of the day we had to scrape my buddy off the lawn. I paid him anyway.
43
posted on
01/14/2003 2:00:24 PM PST
by
MattinNJ
To: ThomasJefferson
When the enemy makes the moves at least you expect them because he is the enemy. The problem we have here is friendly fire. We will be just as dead. So, you believe we're no better off with Dubya as President than we would have been with Al Gore?
44
posted on
01/14/2003 3:06:54 PM PST
by
newgeezer
(If it's not somewhat cruel and unusual, it's not punishment.)
To: newgeezer
If not-that-many more of us had voted the way you did, we'd be discussing the latest moves of President Al Gore. So it's better to get screwed over by your friends than by your enemies?
What are you saying?
To: John R. (Bob) Locke
Bob,
The Founders (may they stop spinning someday) warned us about the dangers of what they called "factions". If they were here, they'd tell us to hit the reset button.
Regards,
To: ET(end tyranny)
If you look at the roster of names on the CFR and other globalist groups you'll find both parties on it.
As well as many CEO's, media hacks, and influential college professors. The CFR list is scary. For instance, every time the media needs a "historian" to interview on TV, it is always Michael Beshlof (spelled wrong). He, of course, is CFR all the way. No matter what channel, CNN, ABC, even FOX, there's Beshlof with his view of whatever historical event they are discussing. It's as though he is the only historian in the country. (Maybe the only historian at the CFR - who tows the New World Order party line.)
To: janetgreen
If you read about the New World Order philosophy, what they want to eventually accomplish is to consolidate North and South America (and everything in between) into one entity so we can live happily together as one. They have been working toward this end for decades now.
To: WRhine
"forward this article to Bill O'Reilly"
O'Reilly sschmeilly. He sold out to the New World Order crowd long ago. Do you think he would be this big if he hadn't? Listen to his arguments. In the end he always tows the NWO viewpoint, e.g. Clintoon impeachment, Osama mama Murphy, etc. He'an arrogant schmuck. He only pretends to be against illegal immigration to get conservative viewers to boost his ratings.
To: RepublicanHippy
Several years ago I (tried to) discuss the NWO with my nephew, a liberal professor at a southern university. He very politely implied that he thinks I'm nuts. I very politely told him that I still believed there was a big plan that was not in the best interests of America, and that it had to do with absolute power. There's no other answer to the insanity that's been going on in this country.
To: ET(end tyranny)
No kidding...I wonder sometimes.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
51
posted on
01/14/2003 7:08:30 PM PST
by
wku man
To: janetgreen
"Several years ago I (tried to) discuss the NWO with my nephew, a liberal professor at a southern university. He very politely implied that he thinks I'm nuts"
Yes, that is often the response I get too. Once I discovered this (about fourteen years ago) everything started to make sense about what is going on in the world and in our own government. I am convinced of it. Your nephew is just very uninformed because the NWO philosophy is not taught in schools (because it would scare the ---- out of people and there would be an uprising). Nope, they just want to keep us in the dark about what they are doing as long as possible. Too many guns in this country.
To: RepublicanHippy
O'Reilly sschmeilly. He sold out to the New World Order crowd long ago. I'm not sure I agree with that. O'Reilly has come out very strongly in favor of putting our military on the border and has skewered Bush, Ashcroft and the INS on a number of occasions for their unresponsiveness in controlling illegal immigration in this country. I'll take any ally I can on this issue, anywhere I can, even if they aren't 100% pure conservatives.
53
posted on
01/14/2003 7:20:22 PM PST
by
WRhine
To: WRhine
Well maybe you are right, but I don't like O'Reily. He did not want to see Clinton thrown out of office and he said recently that Osama Mama Murray should not be thrown out either "because she made a mistake." He's a libertarian and talks out of both sides of his face whenever it suits him and he has often had guests from the CFR to discuss foreign policy, especially over the past year or so.
To: wku man; John R. (Bob) Locke
Don't waste your time with this one, John. PRND21 is a well-known apologist for illegal scumbag aliens.Coming from a proven liar, this holds little weight.
55
posted on
01/14/2003 9:22:48 PM PST
by
PRND21
To: John R. (Bob) Locke
The President has all but abandoned any sort of enforcement of our southern border
Notice the lack of response here.
Now re-read this familiar faced thread and tell me who is "asleep" to facts.
56
posted on
01/14/2003 9:28:00 PM PST
by
PRND21
Comment #57 Removed by Moderator
To: PRND21
You don't live in an area that is awash in illegal immigrants, do you?
Don't bother with an answer, because it's obvious.
This is nothing but straight-up pandering for votes, possbily at the expense of the Social Security system (which is already on its way to failure without tossing more people onto the rolls).
To: RepublicanHippy
If you read about the New World Order philosophy, what they want to eventually accomplish is to consolidate North and South America (and everything in between) into one entity so we can live happily together as one. They have been working toward this end for decades now. They are just being obvious about it now. Must be so many cogs are in place they don't fear a reversal. Once get a 'Unified Americas', how long before see Asia do the same? The the Tri of the tri-lateral will be in place. Then it will only be a matter of time before the three areas (Asia, Americas and Europe) will merge into ONE. Why have three different currenices? Why have different social programs, or retirement systems?
To: John R. (Bob) Locke
When are apologists going to wake up? When are people going to stop lying?
There is no plan to give Social Security to illegals, there is plan to restore the Social Security payments to people who worked in the US legally, then moved back to Mexico.
Bill Clinton stopped the payments, Bush believes that if people paid into the system expecting benefits, they should get their money back.
This is something being done for people from other countries already, Mexico would simply be the newest nation signing the treaty.
There was no mention by the administration to pay SS benefits to illegals. It's notable that the article offers no concrete evidence, and leaves out pertinent facts that would clarify the issue.
When you distort the truth, or tell only part of it, it's still called lying.
60
posted on
01/15/2003 5:20:27 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 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