Hey aaaaaaaaa....tough. ya don't like it then leave and take your brats with you....don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Latinos Outraged By 'Anchor Baby' Term, See It As Offensive
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Hey aaaaaaaaa....tough. ya don't like it then leave and take your brats with you....don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
Naaa, there is no changing stupid.
poncho
Well-Known Member
HOW ANCHOR BABIES INCENTIVIZE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The many ways illegals are encouraged to enter U.S.
Lee Ann McAdoo and Joe Biggs go in depth on the subject of illegal immigration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQQm-1gNpmw
The many ways illegals are encouraged to enter U.S.
Lee Ann McAdoo and Joe Biggs go in depth on the subject of illegal immigration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQQm-1gNpmw
As the Democrat said, if the Latinos all left, who would clean our toilets?
Women. :tonofbricks:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You should not talk about MR. CTB in such a derogatory manner. He only does that in the OP!:BangHead:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You will be accused of "War on Women"!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Grunting and pointing fingers again, Mr. CTB!
poncho
Well-Known Member
Pointing fingers is rude!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is what a "fetus" is Mr. CTB, an unborn baby, and YOUR party celebrates the continued slaughter of such, 56,000,000 and and counting at about 3000+ each day. Your female candidate refuses to condemn the harvesting of usable parts from this slaughter but quoting her [on a related issue] “At This Point What Difference Does It Make?"
Last edited by a moderator:
And you continue your lie.
But you are consistent pretending to be pro life when you are only pro birth and care nothing about how miserable a life that child has after being born.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Just do what the abortionist does: "whack" it or simply let it die of starvation; that is unless it has some salvable and salable parts!
poncho
Well-Known Member
Good morning Crabby. Now that you're back online you can answer my question.
Why do you only care about the children democrats use as pawns in their demonization campaigns against republicans?
I care for all children.
Phncho, why is it that so many Republicans care only about the unborn child, but care nothing about its welfare after it is born?
I answered your question. Please answer mine.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
So you deny that your party spent one evening at the 2012 convention that nominated Obama for a second term celebrating the slaughter of the unborn. In doing so you prove that you are a liar.
So you deny that Hillary Clinton refuses to condemn the Margaret Sanger Foundation for Eugenics {Better known as Planned Parenthood} for selling body parts from the slaughter of the unborn. Of course as Hillary would correctly say "At this point what difference does it make"? In doing so you again prove that you are a liar.
Again you prove yourself a liar! But in this case you are speaking out of ignorance!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
As usual you distort the truth Mr. CTB, therefore making it a lie. The parents of Rubio and Jindal were legal immigrants. They are not anchor babies. Whether Domenici was born to illegal immigrants is debatable!
poncho
Well-Known Member
I think what you're really asking is why do republicans not see the wisdom in using government force to take money from some people to give to others "for the children"?
First, that's not charity. It's theft. Second not all republicans are against this kind of theft. Third conservatives believe in personal responsibility, socialism (theft by government) would eliminate that responsibility and shift the burden the lack of responsibility creates onto the backs of taxpayers who have enough trouble meeting the demands theft by government has placed on them already.
I don't believe for a minute you care about all children Crabby. If you did you wouldn't be using the children of illegal immigrants as pawns to shame and and demonize your political opponents.
I liked liberals better when they weren't such total authoritarians that have to have everything their way at the expense of everyone else, or else . . .
For the record I don't believe liberalism is a sickness, I believe collectivism is a sickness that has infected the minds of liberals and turned them into authoritarian zombie like creatures.
Last edited by a moderator:
CTB & all the other bleeding heart ultra liberals like CTB:
It would appear to me that, once again you've used your very wide brush when you accuse everyone who calls him-/herself a Republican [WPE3BQL is Not A Republican, the ONLY times I've ever voted for a GOP President was in 1980 & 1984. I've voted in every Presidential election beginning in 1968 up to 2012.
With the 2 exceptions I just noted, every time I've voted for a 3rd party party candidate. I say this lest anyone should think that I'm in love with the GOP and would blindly vote for any candidate simply because he/she is a GOP candidate for any elective voting position in either a local, state, or federal election race.]
I've always vote for whomever God has told me to as a result of the many prayers for His guidance with regard to His answers. Some of the candidate for whom God {via the HS's guidance} have won the particular election, but some have lost.]
IMHO, a person who blindly votes for a candidate simply because he/she identifies with a particular party is either one who hasn't taken the time to examine that candidate's position on every concern with the positions that candidate either supports or just doesn't care very much who wins, as long as that candidate identifies with the same party as that person supports.
Sad to say, but a large percent of voters do this in just about every race that's on that persons ballot.
1)EXAMPLE: several voters in the 2008 & 2012 voted for Obama simply because he was a black.
2) In the 2012 race, a lot of people didn't vote for the GOP's candidate simply because Romney is a Mormon. While I don't like anything that the Mormons advocate, I don't normally vote for the GOP's candidate offers, if I were a GOP person (Which I'm not!), I'd certainly wouldn't vote for that person's religious ties.
The 1st Amendment states that it's illegal for a political party to forbid a person simply because that person identifies with a certain religion. The same thing should also be applied to each voter in any level of every local or state or federal election race.
While many people who didn't vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon, they didn't take they didn't observe what the other parties' candidates advocate on certain important concerns in the 2012 presidential election.
FWIW, the Mormons usually are very good when it comes to economics. While one may be opposed to what the Mormons advocate on other other issues, they are usually correct when it comes to economics. In fact, GOP president Eiensenhower selected a Morman to be his Secretary of the Treasury throughout his 8-year tenure as POTOUS. Ike liked a lot of things this Mormon advocated in economics, thus he appointed this Mormon to the highest federal government position so that this Mormon would would supervise our nation's economy for the entire 8 years [1953-1961] of Ike's presidency.
It would seem to me that if Ike appointed a Mormon to the highest economic position our nation has, it shouldn't matter that much that a Mormon presidential candidate should receive our vote for POTUS , especially when compared to what his ultra left wing positions are on the economics.
However, many evangelicals refused to vote for him simply because Romney is a Mormon. I think it'd be safe to assume that these evangelicals probably voted for a twice-divoriced movie star who was twice appointed as a labor union president and was a Democrat for several years and whose religious connections led him to not attend on a regular basis any evangelic local church worship service in his entire 8-year tenure as POTUS from 1981-1989.
I wish to remind folks that the born again POTUS Jimmy Carter who often taught SS and occasionally preached in his Baptist home church in Plains GA, was about the worst POTUS when it came to our nation's economy during the 1977-1981 time frame.
If you lived in that time span, you probably remember how bad our nations economic situation was such as a very high interest for personal & business loans.
Those high percentage rates kept many people unable to even seek out a loan--thus forcing the US economy to have an economic slump that came close to that of the great depression when Democrat POTUS FDR was in office.
My point is that just because a candidate for any office identifies him-/herself as a Mormon, that per se shouldn't automatically is no reason to reject that person as POTUS.
As a result of many evangelicals not voting for Romney in 2012, our nation was stuck with a POTUS whose economics positions are even worse than born-again Baptist POTUS Jimmy Carter's economic policies were.
One needs to be reminded that when we vote for any political position, from that of a local city chamber position to that of the POTUS, we're not voting (especially the POTUS's), we're NOT voting for "Pastor of the US," as some evangelicals wrongly assume we are. We are simply voting for someone to head the Executive branch of the US.
It would appear to me that, once again you've used your very wide brush when you accuse everyone who calls him-/herself a Republican [WPE3BQL is Not A Republican, the ONLY times I've ever voted for a GOP President was in 1980 & 1984. I've voted in every Presidential election beginning in 1968 up to 2012.
With the 2 exceptions I just noted, every time I've voted for a 3rd party party candidate. I say this lest anyone should think that I'm in love with the GOP and would blindly vote for any candidate simply because he/she is a GOP candidate for any elective voting position in either a local, state, or federal election race.]
I've always vote for whomever God has told me to as a result of the many prayers for His guidance with regard to His answers. Some of the candidate for whom God {via the HS's guidance} have won the particular election, but some have lost.]
IMHO, a person who blindly votes for a candidate simply because he/she identifies with a particular party is either one who hasn't taken the time to examine that candidate's position on every concern with the positions that candidate either supports or just doesn't care very much who wins, as long as that candidate identifies with the same party as that person supports.
Sad to say, but a large percent of voters do this in just about every race that's on that persons ballot.
1)EXAMPLE: several voters in the 2008 & 2012 voted for Obama simply because he was a black.
2) In the 2012 race, a lot of people didn't vote for the GOP's candidate simply because Romney is a Mormon. While I don't like anything that the Mormons advocate, I don't normally vote for the GOP's candidate offers, if I were a GOP person (Which I'm not!), I'd certainly wouldn't vote for that person's religious ties.
The 1st Amendment states that it's illegal for a political party to forbid a person simply because that person identifies with a certain religion. The same thing should also be applied to each voter in any level of every local or state or federal election race.
While many people who didn't vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon, they didn't take they didn't observe what the other parties' candidates advocate on certain important concerns in the 2012 presidential election.
FWIW, the Mormons usually are very good when it comes to economics. While one may be opposed to what the Mormons advocate on other other issues, they are usually correct when it comes to economics. In fact, GOP president Eiensenhower selected a Morman to be his Secretary of the Treasury throughout his 8-year tenure as POTOUS. Ike liked a lot of things this Mormon advocated in economics, thus he appointed this Mormon to the highest federal government position so that this Mormon would would supervise our nation's economy for the entire 8 years [1953-1961] of Ike's presidency.
It would seem to me that if Ike appointed a Mormon to the highest economic position our nation has, it shouldn't matter that much that a Mormon presidential candidate should receive our vote for POTUS , especially when compared to what his ultra left wing positions are on the economics.
However, many evangelicals refused to vote for him simply because Romney is a Mormon. I think it'd be safe to assume that these evangelicals probably voted for a twice-divoriced movie star who was twice appointed as a labor union president and was a Democrat for several years and whose religious connections led him to not attend on a regular basis any evangelic local church worship service in his entire 8-year tenure as POTUS from 1981-1989.
I wish to remind folks that the born again POTUS Jimmy Carter who often taught SS and occasionally preached in his Baptist home church in Plains GA, was about the worst POTUS when it came to our nation's economy during the 1977-1981 time frame.
If you lived in that time span, you probably remember how bad our nations economic situation was such as a very high interest for personal & business loans.
Those high percentage rates kept many people unable to even seek out a loan--thus forcing the US economy to have an economic slump that came close to that of the great depression when Democrat POTUS FDR was in office.
My point is that just because a candidate for any office identifies him-/herself as a Mormon, that per se shouldn't automatically is no reason to reject that person as POTUS.
As a result of many evangelicals not voting for Romney in 2012, our nation was stuck with a POTUS whose economics positions are even worse than born-again Baptist POTUS Jimmy Carter's economic policies were.
One needs to be reminded that when we vote for any political position, from that of a local city chamber position to that of the POTUS, we're not voting (especially the POTUS's), we're NOT voting for "Pastor of the US," as some evangelicals wrongly assume we are. We are simply voting for someone to head the Executive branch of the US.
Nowhere in this lengthy, rambling post do I see the words "latino", "anchor" or "baby". You didn't even finish your own thought in the opening sentence.
No, I meant exactly what I ask. Why is it that so many Republicans are so concerned about a child before he or she is born, but are not concerned in ensuring that child had health services, an education, good nutrition, etc. That is my question.
Please answer. Thanks.