Posted on 09/21/2011 11:55:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Like Poe’s purloined letter, the Republican plan to heist the 2012 presidential election sits before us in plain view. And going Poe one better, it is perfectly legal.
The first part of the strategy has been unfolding for months. Since the 2010 elections brought Republicans to power in numerous swing states, officials in many of those states have made it harder for minority, poor and young voters to cast their ballots. GOP governments have been curtailing early voting (in Ohio and Florida) and requiring voters to produce official photo-identification cards (in Wisconsin). In South Carolina, the poll tax lives again: Voters who want an official photo-ID card must present a passport or a birth certificate, neither of which can be obtained for free.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You forgot A$$HOLE.
Is being a biggot worse than being just a bigot?
But you can’t complain if you get a RINO instead of a Dem in a swing state:) (Just kidding, sure you can. It’s worth replacing a Rat with a RINO just to see the looks on the commie faces.)
...officials in many of those states have made it harder for minority, poor and young voters to cast their ballots.Voters here and there are now required to show ID. Oh no, what a hardship. It's like ten times worse than poll taxes. /s
” But you can’t complain if you get a RINO instead of a Dem in a swing state:) (Just kidding, sure you can. It’s worth replacing a Rat with a RINO just to see the looks on the commie faces.)”
Scum is scum is scum is scum........ : )
Perry defended his Dream Act because it was very popular in Texas, he also repeated that it makes the people we want to be citizens (illegals) to be productive, but he is against amnesty... this smells of BS, How do you pursue citizenship when you are illegal?
This 'liberal thing' will be a dying breed of head-exploding has-beens in a few years.
Perry didn't sound so set against a "path to citizenship" in this 2011 Newsweek interview: LINK
this smells of BS, How do you pursue citizenship when you are illegal?
The Dream Act Faction's side of the story is this:
1) "Their parents brought them here when they were kids." I think that is true for some, but the max age for the Dream act is 29, so some of them could have come by themselves and spent 3 years getting the residence requirements.
2) "They have to have filed an I-130 for permanent residence." This is not the policy. They are required to sign a paper stating that they have filed or will some day. Why didn't the Texas lawmakers require them to file for permanent resident before they applied for the Dream Act? Something is mighty peculiar here!!!!
But even if an illegal did not have to file the I-130, some of them probably did. Say a sibling became naturalized through marriage, a deal to testify against someone, whatever. As of today, for Mexicans (much longer for the Philippines) it takes about 16 years before their visa number comes up, maybe longer if they had previous immigration problems. So some of them no doubt can and do file for permanent resident. The argument is that they are in limbo and can't work now, but when their waiting period is up, they will be legal.
3) "They don't have to apply for legal status, but if they don't, they can't get a job, so they are wasting their money they pay for tuition, books, etc."
Well, the question still remains: Why didn't the Texas lawmakers require them to file for permanent resident before they applied for the Dream Act?
Apart from that, maybe the ones who do not qualify to file an I-139 just assume that amnesty will happen eventually.
Also, Texas HB 2886 would provide a permit to get a drivers license and work for illegals, making Texas a true sanctuary state. It violates federal employment law, but what the hell, we have Holder and Napolitano in charge. It probably won't pass, but it might give them hope.
Because our lovable rats don't want them to, and have tried they hardest to make it tough. Remember, with an id card, you can open a bank account, and do a variety of things that may keep you from staying in poverty.
If you think I am joking, take a look at how one state that passed a voter ID law, also allowed for (at state cost) anyone thats a resident and citizen to get an I.D. card (Indiana, I think). The rats flipped out, and started suddenly screaming about costs, lol.
Actually Hannity asked Perry if he was for citizenship for illegals living here and Perry replied something like “ No I am not for blanket citizenship however those brought here as children through no fault of their own...” going on about Dream Act and making them productive citizens..
It is pretty clear where he stands. No double talk can change that.
My question which will NEVER be asked is :"How do you ensure that those illegals that are given citizenship will vote for freedom and capitalism vs socialism and slavery?"
and "What do you mean by productive?"
Beyond that, we're not talking about exorbitant fees for replacements. In Virginia, it costs $12 for a replacement birth certificate. In DC, it's $23. Not what I'd call major hardships. And even if they are hardships, a birth certificate is just one form of ID they can use. How many people, poor or not, have no form of photo ID?
Good post!
That sums it up for me rather nicely.
Scum who stab you in the back from the other side will be resoundingly criticized here.
Scum who stab you in the back from our side always find a good portion of us defending them, because they’re better than say an Obama. Screw that noise.
Give me someone we can ally against, not another fricken McCain who always has a contingent hanging around talking about his voting recorded and what a great war hero he was, while he strengthens Obama’s hand almost constantly.
Bingo !
Of course we are hard on RINOs here, as we should be. On the other hand, elections of such “moderates” as Turner in NY-9 can be useful for demoralizing the left, making them spend money, and making them lash out in ways that some voters won’t like. For all I know, Turner may turn out better than we think. And as I said, the looks on the Dem faces are priceless.
Reagan talked about politicians who agreed with him 80% of the time. Is 70% OK sometimes? 65%?
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.