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.

[barbara]

Speaking before a floor of legislators, state Rep. Mickey Dollens said on Thursday that he is thinking about introducing the legislation next year.

"I would invite you to co-author a bill that I'm considering next year that would mandate that each male, when they reach puberty, get a mandatory vasectomy that's only reversible when they reach the point of financial and emotional stability," he told GOP lawmakers.

"If you think that's crazy then I think that maybe you understand how 50 percent of Oklahomans feel, as well," the Democrat said.
https://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-stat...154326130.html

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by barbara

Speaking before a floor of legislators, state Rep. Mickey Dollens said on Thursday that he is thinking about introducing the legislation next year.

"I would invite you to co-author a bill that I'm considering next year that would mandate that each male, when they reach puberty, get a mandatory vasectomy that's only reversible when they reach the point of financial and emotional stability," he told GOP lawmakers.

"If you think that's crazy then I think that maybe you understand how 50 percent of Oklahomans feel, as well," the Democrat said.
https://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-stat...154326130.html

It is interesting how all the anti-abortion fervor conveniently overlooks how men actually play a big role in pregnancy. As the saying goes, Republicans support children from conception to birth. After that, let 'em starve.

[Chicks]

Debating a guy who was (is?) all in for a con man like Trump is pretty pointless. He probably believes the election was “stolen”. Sad!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Debating a guy who was (is?) all in for a con man like Trump is pretty pointless. He probably believes the election was “stolen”. Sad!

'The guy' has the tools to debate intelligently. He's just is in the habit of thinking the name of the game is 'bash bash.' He has, to be sure, been encouraged in this habit....

[barbara]

Republicans are complaining about "Replacement" and yet, by denying women abortions, minorities who can't afford to take time off work and travel to other states will be forced to have those babies. Seems to me that denying abortions only increases the population the republicans fear so much.