- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pelosi & Democrats Unanimously reject a motion condemning Illegal Immigrant Voting
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:36 am to antibarner
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:36 am to antibarner
quote:True. Do you take the position that citizens who are renters should not vote in school board elections?
Very few of the illegals are homeowners paying taxes.
2
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:36 am to AggieHank86
quote:
adequate ties
W T F ?
ILLEGAL
Do you speak English, you commie fuktard?
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
This is why we are a federal republic rather than a national state. Why do y’all hate federal republics?
Strawman alert from the resident liberal
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
True. Do you take the position that citizens who are renters should not vote in school board elections?
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
True. Do you take the position that citizens who are renters should not vote in school board elections
This word has meaning and if the word before it is illegal, then no....frick them.
This post was edited on 6/12/19 at 9:39 am
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:All entirely reasonable points ... none of which address the question of whether LOCALS should make that call for themselves or rather have it made for them by a distant government in London ... oops, wrong century, I meant DC.
Like, um, what could illegals voting in local elections do besides affect school boards?
Oh, I dunno. They could eventually outnumber actual citizens or, at least create a large enough subset to drive TONS of local policies to benefit primarily other illegals.
This post was edited on 6/12/19 at 9:39 am
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
All entirely reasonable points ... none of which address the question of whether LOCALS should make that call for themselves or rather have it made for them by a distant government in London ... oops, wrong century, I meant DC.
Resolution.
It was a resolution you fricktard
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:Beautiful equating illegals to revolutionarys.
distant government in London ... oops, wrong century, I meant DC.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:43 am to Jbird
quote:
Beautiful equating illegals to revolutionarys.
And equating a RESOLUTION to Royal edict.
No HankieLib.
A resolution is the equivalent of the King of England responding the the colonies declaring their independence by issuing a letter saying, "that's a really fricking bad idea".
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:46 am to cajunangelle
quote:I quoted a guy who (granted) is quite liberal, who himself was quoting a guy who was NOT known to be a big liberal, as far as I know. The first time I saw it, it was discussed on TexAgs, but it DOES eventually trace back to an op-ed in Daily Kos.
didn't he claim he was a libertarian/'classic liberal' as well?
Shorty decided that my reference was all part of some years-long, false-flag subterfuge. He is wrong (and frankly a bit paranoid), but he is entitled to his opinion.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:49 am to Jbird
quote:Chucklequote:Beautiful equating illegals to revolutionarys.
distant government in London ... oops, wrong century, I meant DC.
The illegal aliens are not the ones deciding WHETHER to allow illegal alien local residents to vote in local elections. That would be those who are ALREADY voting legally
This post was edited on 6/12/19 at 9:50 am
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It is ENTIRELY reasonable to determine that non-citizens’ interests would not justify their participation in federal elections (for example setting foreign policy and military spending).
There is no reason or logic in this statement.
Why does Jorge from Jalisco and Juan from El Paso posses significantly different interests as it pertains to military spending?
You are intentionally ignoring the only significant distinction, and that distinction exists no matter if voting for Senator or Dog Catcher.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:Indeed.
Chuckle
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:Oh pahleez. You spoke for the guy's credibility and admitted to having read a fair amount of his other stuff(all of which is unhinged lefty shite)
I quoted a guy who (granted) is quite liberal, who himself was quoting a guy who was NOT known to be a big liberal, as far as I know. The first time I saw it, it was discussed on TexAgs, but it DOES eventually trace back to an op-ed in Daily Kos.
Good lord, your dishonesty is astounding.
quote:No. Shorty caught your arse and everyone saw it.
Shorty decided that my reference was all part of some years-long, false-flag subterfuge. He is wrong (and frankly a bit paranoid), but he is entitled to his opinion.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:51 am to ShortyRob
quote:
We're talking about a guy who tried to pass of DailyKos shite on this board on the sly. OBSCURE DailyKos shite that one would have almost certainly have had to be a REGULAR DailyKos guy to even be aware of.
Do you have a link to that thread? I need a hard laugh this morning
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:57 am to GRTiger
You are entirely missing the point.
Not once have I asserted that Rogelio SHOULD be voting in EITHER election, though I HAVE asked others to explain why he should NOT.
The POINT that I raise is WHERE the decision as to the breadth of a voting base should be made.
I think it should be made at the level of government for which the election is held. National decision for national elections. State decision for state elections. Local level for local elections.
Keeping governmental decisionmaking at a level as close as possible to the voters has been a hallmark of small government conservatism for as long as I can remember.
I am at a loss to understand how so many posters on this forum now see that concept as “liberal” just because in THIS INSTANCE it is supported by Dems and MAY produce a result that they do not like. I see a complete lack of core principles.
Not once have I asserted that Rogelio SHOULD be voting in EITHER election, though I HAVE asked others to explain why he should NOT.
The POINT that I raise is WHERE the decision as to the breadth of a voting base should be made.
I think it should be made at the level of government for which the election is held. National decision for national elections. State decision for state elections. Local level for local elections.
Keeping governmental decisionmaking at a level as close as possible to the voters has been a hallmark of small government conservatism for as long as I can remember.
I am at a loss to understand how so many posters on this forum now see that concept as “liberal” just because in THIS INSTANCE it is supported by Dems and MAY produce a result that they do not like. I see a complete lack of core principles.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:quote:So, you support a resolution discouraging state and local governments from doing something
resolution doesn't "tell" the states or local governments to do anything
Posted on 6/12/19 at 9:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
am at a loss to understand how so many posters on this forum now see that concept as “liberal” just because in THIS INSTANCE it is supported by Dems
Posted on 6/12/19 at 10:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:Because it is a right reserved for citizens 18 and over.
Not once have I asserted that Rogelio SHOULD be voting in EITHER election, though I HAVE asked others to explain why he should NOT.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 10:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are entirely missing the point.
No I didn't, you're just pivoting.
I don't have an issue with most of what you said after the above, which is different than what you tried to say previously.
Though if you aren't a citizen at the federal level, you aren't a citizen at the town level. And I believe that should make you ineligible to vote in any election.
Obviously you and your fellow Dems disagree.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News