| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2006 08:18:38 PM · #1 |
| Is it just my skeptic mind, or is anyone else not understanding how Bush and Homeland security can say we are safer when we have borders you could drive the Queen Mary across (full of terrorist and equipment) unnoticed? I find this almost humorus when I hear it. Just wondering what others thought. |
|
|
|
08/12/2006 08:21:24 PM · #2 |
we are not safer...the us govt wants open borders but claims otherwise...they are slowly taking away our rights under the guise of "protecting us"
|
|
|
|
08/12/2006 09:13:19 PM · #3 |
| I find it humorous too. How can you drive a boat. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 09:16:48 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I find it humorous too. How can you drive a boat. |
First of all the Queen Mary is a ship! Secondly, you have to wait for high tide in the Rio Grande and most of all make sure you have your seat belt on, Q.M. is awful in the corners....what was the point??? |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 09:26:53 AM · #5 |
::puts most sarcastic voice on::
YEah lets build a darn wall aroudn the states in order to keep all the evil people out.
and what in hell woudl you do withthe evil people already born inthe states?? lets throw them over the wall...
::sarcasm off::
Leave the borders alone! good lord... thats what this country was built on! |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:28:05 PM · #6 |
| I think the wall idea is a good one, it's just about half a planet off in proposed location. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:49:14 PM · #7 |
| Or the G8 could eliminate would poverty, and then there would hardly be any terrorists to keep out. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:03:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Or the G8 could eliminate would poverty, and then there would hardly be any terrorists to keep out. |
First off it's hard to "eliminate" poverty and it'll take more than the G8 to do it. As long as there is money there will be poverty.
Second: It's the idea that the G8 could "eliminate" poverty with all our money, power, WALMART, Burger King, and Star Bucks that piss the terrorist off. It is not a fight about money anyway. If you take a good long look at this it boils down to religion. Plain and simple. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:02:30 PM · #9 |
If you take a good long look at this it boils down to religion. Plain and simple. [/quote]
It is more than religion, it is an ideaology. Nazism was not a religion yet one could say it was. Some turned it into a religion called white supremacy. Is that a religioin or a movement with an agenda?
Far as money, the middle east has plenty (oil). The problem is, only a few seem to have the wealth.
What ever the case the fact is, they want to kill you and me. I find this disturbing with a wall or no wall. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:11:27 PM · #10 |
::sarcasm off::
Leave the borders alone! good lord... thats what this country was built on! [/quote]
I find your thoughts interesting. The only difference I seem to have with you is this country was built on LEGAL immigrants. Personally I like and enjoy Mexican people. The issue with me is we are at war with radical extremists and I find it silly for our Leaders to state we are safe when they have not idea of who and what is coming into this country. Mexico has strict laws governing their borders and immigrants. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:51:01 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by RMyers1314:
If you take a good long look at this it boils down to religion. Plain and simple. |
Hmm - I always think that religion is used as an excuse. It is about power, money, land, status, oppression, all kinds of other things. If you could sort out some of those things, differences in religious belief would be of very little consequence.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 04:06:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by broadwaybill:
Mexico has strict laws governing their borders and immigrants. |
I thought they were having a major problem with an influx of illegal Guatemalan immigrants?
|
|
|
|
08/18/2006 11:49:26 PM · #13 |
I thought they were having a major problem with an influx of illegal Guatemalan immigrants? [/quote]
They are having a problem with the Guatemalan imigr. due to the large numbers. This does not mean that Mexico does not have strict laws governoring imigrants. On the southern borders they have their army tying to stop anyone entering their country. On the North they are pushing them into the U.S. along with everything under the sun.
The Guatemalans are trying to get to the USA. As an American, go to Mexico and see for yourself just how unwelcome you are, to buy land and to set yourself up there. Use to be ok but not any longer. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:27:22 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by broadwaybill:
Mexico has strict laws governing their borders and immigrants. |
So does almost every country in the world besides the USA. Let one mention be made here about border control and you're called a racist.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:57:24 PM · #15 |
Because they are too corrupt or stupid to recognise a lie when they say it :-)
How come most of the weapons in the world have "made in " :-/ |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:07:14 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by broadwaybill:
The only difference I seem to have with you is this country was built on LEGAL immigrants. |
Actually, not... There was nothing "legal" about the way North America was annexed by the Western European countries. As far as the Native Americans are concerned, we are ALL illegal immigrants or descended from them. Then we STOLE central and southern California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona from the Mexicans and pushed the northern California Russians out as well. That we ended up paying a pittance to the Mexicans after the war is neither here nor there.
We followed a little idea called "manifest destiny" which basically said, "if you want it, take it!"
The cresting tsunami of Hispanic/Latin American political/cultural influence in the Southwest is one of the great ironies of recent history, since they "owned" it all in the first place, having been the ones to snatch it from the natives...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:51:16 AM · #17 |
So since Latin Americans, etc. are Spanish and Native American...is it actually Spain's claim to the West?
We WON the war (basically over the area), so WE get it.
I am just going back to my ancient ancestor the Neanderthal. So all this land is MINE. Get off MY EARTH!! :)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 08:28:59 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by broadwaybill:
The only difference I seem to have with you is this country was built on LEGAL immigrants. |
Actually, not... There was nothing "legal" about the way North America was annexed by the Western European countries. As far as the Native Americans are concerned, we are ALL illegal immigrants or descended from them. Then we STOLE central and southern California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona from the Mexicans and pushed the northern California Russians out as well. That we ended up paying a pittance to the Mexicans after the war is neither here nor there.
We followed a little idea called "manifest destiny" which basically said, "if you want it, take it!"
The cresting tsunami of Hispanic/Latin American political/cultural influence in the Southwest is one of the great ironies of recent history, since they "owned" it all in the first place, having been the ones to snatch it from the natives...
Robt. |
not only that, but a lot of those "legal" immigrants came over when there were little to no laws against immigration. They are not morally superior to the immigrants we have today. And they were just as hated by the bigots back then.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 09:17:10 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by RMyers1314:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Or the G8 could eliminate would poverty, and then there would hardly be any terrorists to keep out. |
First off it's hard to "eliminate" poverty and it'll take more than the G8 to do it. As long as there is money there will be poverty.
Second: It's the idea that the G8 could "eliminate" poverty with all our money, power, WALMART, Burger King, and Star Bucks that piss the terrorist off. It is not a fight about money anyway. If you take a good long look at this it boils down to religion. Plain and simple. |
Actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Power (using religion as an excuse). |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 09:32:55 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by RMyers1314:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Or the G8 could eliminate would poverty, and then there would hardly be any terrorists to keep out. |
First off it's hard to "eliminate" poverty and it'll take more than the G8 to do it. As long as there is money there will be poverty.
Second: It's the idea that the G8 could "eliminate" poverty with all our money, power, WALMART, Burger King, and Star Bucks that piss the terrorist off. It is not a fight about money anyway. If you take a good long look at this it boils down to religion. Plain and simple. |
Actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Power (using religion as an excuse). |
"Actually, it has nothing to do with religion and power. It's all about economics!"
I think those are the big three factors here: religion, power, economics. Or is it really all about sex?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 09:44:53 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by broadwaybill:
The only difference I seem to have with you is this country was built on LEGAL immigrants. |
This was the indians land before we came and invaded their territory. Tell them we were legal immigrants.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2010 12:30:14 AM · #22 |
A bigger and better border for our protection? With the already strict migrating laws, its difficult to become a citizen, but you got to pay to play. Putting strict procedures to allow people in from another country pushes good people out.
Our problem is drugs coming in a way that it doesn't matter how big we make our wall. It called "plata o plomo" silver or lead, take this money or our buddies and i will kill you on the spot.
And yes, the "Zetas" have that much money. kinda makes one wonder who is really in control of our border. |
|
|
|
05/25/2010 12:52:29 AM · #23 |
You've been here for a little more than a week, and the only contribution you can make is to practice necromancy on a 4-yr-old rant thread? LOL...
R.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2010 10:06:16 AM · #24 |
Sounds like a challenge idea: "Find a DPC rant thread topic that is more than 2 years old and make a photo about it."
Necromancy â€Â¦ nice! =)
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You've been here for a little more than a week, and the only contribution you can make is to practice necromancy on a 4-yr-old rant thread? LOL...
R. |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2010 10:46:36 AM · #25 |
| Hell, he is just trying to get caught up . |
|
