To: tumblindice
How about saying you’re going to “deport them all” only to not be able to do it?
is that better?
43 posted on
11/25/2011 8:49:34 AM PST by
RockinRight
(If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
To: RockinRight
50 posted on
11/25/2011 8:53:24 AM PST by
Grunthor
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw)
To: RockinRight
If you’re talking about what I would do, when people ask me in my job to threaten someone I tell them I don’t make threats. I tell them what I will do.
I will vote for someone who says, “I will regain control of our borders and enforce our immigration laws.”
How’s that?
60 posted on
11/25/2011 8:57:47 AM PST by
tumblindice
( No Newts is good Newts)
To: RockinRight
How about saying that you are going to seal the border and enforce the immigration laws already on the books? Hows about no work, no money, no medical.
154 posted on
11/25/2011 10:25:28 AM PST by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
To: RockinRight
only to not be able to do it? Big difference between not able, and not willing. Strange how we confuse that word all the time, it must suit someones purpose.
174 posted on
11/25/2011 11:17:15 AM PST by
itsahoot
(Throw them all out!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson