Roe V Wade history?

[Pio1980]

6

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not a fan of replacement theory, but one does have to ask: to what ends will a politician or party go to secure a vote, or a voting block? Its no secret that Dems believe that less aggressive enforcement of immigration law correlates to increased support within the Hispanic community. Its also no secret that the Dems have gone hard left over time on the issue of immigration.
Absent any public explanation about why illegal immigration if flourishing, it certainly appears that porous borders - which also allow terrorists to enter - are a means to a end with today's left.

Show us these illegal immigration "terrorists".
Most (not all) of the crime and terror appears to be by domestic drug thugs and domestic terrorist gun nuts.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not a fan of replacement theory, but one does have to ask: to what ends will a politician or party go to secure a vote, or a voting block? Its no secret that Dems believe that less aggressive enforcement of immigration law correlates to increased support within the Hispanic community. Its also no secret that the Dems have gone hard left over time on the issue of immigration.
Absent any public explanation about why illegal immigration if flourishing, it certainly appears that porous borders - which also allow terrorists to enter - are a means to a end with today's left.

If I may submit comment, what a load of horseshit.
First of all what ends the REPUBLICANS are going to to secure a voting block are being seen everyday. Only the Repubs are maintaining that the Dems have gone hard left over immigration. Them with with their "open borders" nonsense. whell, I maintain your last sentence is just so much Reich-Wing propaganda bullshit. Do you have anything to support such statements?

As an addition, what does any of your comment have to do with ROE V. WADE?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not a fan of replacement theory, but one does have to ask: to what ends will a politician or party go to secure a vote, or a voting block? Its no secret that Dems believe that less aggressive enforcement of immigration law correlates to increased support within the Hispanic community. Its also no secret that the Dems have gone hard left over time on the issue of immigration.
Absent any public explanation about why illegal immigration if flourishing, it certainly appears that porous borders - which also allow terrorists to enter - are a means to a end with today's left.

Then why, pray tell, does the GOP oppose comprehensive immigration reform, even if proposed by its own president (Dubya), or addressing the rationale for emigration from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) in favor of demonizing immigrants? It seems they want to keep it as an issue for their nativist base rather than address it head-on.

Porous borders are not the primary issue. Underlying conditions in the countries of origin are. If porous borders were the primary issue, Canadians would be flocking over our largely insecure northern border. No type of border security over a ~2,000 mile southern border is going to stop people willing to risk their lives trekking through 1,500 miles of desert to avoid the lawlessness/hopelessness of their native lands.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not a fan of replacement theory, but one does have to ask: to what ends will a politician or party go to secure a vote, or a voting block? Its no secret that Dems believe that less aggressive enforcement of immigration law correlates to increased support within the Hispanic community. Its also no secret that the Dems have gone hard left over time on the issue of immigration.
Absent any public explanation about why illegal immigration if flourishing, it certainly appears that porous borders - which also allow terrorists to enter - are a means to a end with today's left.

Illegal immigrant friendly policies benefit two big constituencies. First as you say Democratic politicians that seek to ingratiate themselves with some members of the Hispanic community, though the community is not monolithic and includes anti-immigration factions. The other is big agribusiness interests and other business interests that like to employ illegal immigrants. Your guess is as good as mine as to which holds more sway in the enforcement arena. Your guess is also probably less good than mine has regarding how deliberately porous the border is. Certainly everything I hear from and about the border patrol types points to zealous enforcement.

In any case, I scoff at the notion that terrorists are infiltrating the southern border in any marked degree. Was it an infiltrator from abroad that just shot up a store in Buffalo? What notable terrorist incident can you point to that was carried out by foreign infiltrators in the past few years?

And I hope you aren't suggesting that there is a notable and influential level of illegal immigrants voting! It's hard for an illegal immigrant to vote, and particularly risky. I can't imagine hardly any ever doing it.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not a fan of replacement theory, but....

This is worse than 'praising with faint damns.' With that 'but' you are flat-out dismissing the blatantly racist tactics of today's GOP.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

6

Show us these illegal immigration "terrorists".
Most (not all) of the crime and terror appears to be by domestic drug thugs and domestic terrorist gun nuts.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/24/ice-na...atrol-release/

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

This is worse than 'praising with faint damns.' With that 'but' you are flat-out dismissing the blatantly racist tactics of today's GOP.

Only if you don't read the rest of my post. And please don't tell me the left doesn't race bait. The politics of race runs unabated on both sides of the aisle. There's no justification for it, unless the end goal is to increase the divisiveness in this country.

[Chicks]

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion - mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, and an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because).

Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

-unknown

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Only if you don't read the rest of my post. And please don't tell me the left doesn't race bait. The politics of race runs unabated on both sides of the aisle. There's no justification for it, unless the end goal is to increase the divisiveness in this country.

I wonder if we can get something clear. How many people have to say or do a thing before one is justified in saying 'the left' does it?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Only if you don't read the rest of my post. And please don't tell me the left doesn't race bait. The politics of race runs unabated on both sides of the aisle. There's no justification for it, unless the end goal is to increase the divisiveness in this country.

You know, I did read the rest of your post. I even responded to it. It talks critically about democrats, but I don't see where it says anything that answers my point above. Still, I think you have cone out against race baiting. That is good.