• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

BOYCOTT

A

Anonymous

Guest
I've been listening to the news and the remarks people are making about the new AZ. law. Towns and cities all across the U.S. want to boycott AZ. Its funny though LA is making statements about boycotting but they don't want to boycott the power from AZ. that feeds 25% of the LA needs. On top of this we have a president who, along with his staff has not read the law and then allows the mexican president to stand in the capitol and chastise the law. We have violence and drugs spilling over the border all along the 2000 miles separating us from Mexico. Here's a thought for the president of Mexico, show us how mad you are and instruct your people to boycott the U.S.
 

don

Well-known member
somewhat similar to american demand for canadian energy but wants to stand in the way of beef, pork, wheat lumber exports from canada. don't expect anything political to make sense. every nation (and now municipality or state) is hypocritical in order to serve shortterm interests.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BAR BAR 2 said:
Ontop of this we have a president who, along with his staff has not read the law and then allows the mexican presidentto stand in the capitol and chastise the law. We have violence and drugs spilling over the border all along the 2000 miles separating us from Mexico. Here's a thought for the president of Mexico, show us how mad you are and instruct your peopleto boycott the U.S.

And we didn't have the same with GW down there playing kissy face- grab ass with his old Zillionaire elitist buddy Fox :???: Including his going so far as to join McCain and crawl in bed with Teddy Kennedy to sponsor the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill :???:

Until you take government control out of the multinational corporate world and the US chamber of commerce that will go to all means to get cheap labor for the Fatcats and elitists at the expense of the country - it will not change.....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And we didn't have the same with GW...
So...that's why you voted for Obama? Because he would be the same as "GW"? :lol:

Might I remind you of just a few of your pre-election comments?

(Note that this is not intended to be a complete compilation due to time constraints.)


Oldtimer said:
we need "CHANGE"...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=307238#307238


Oldtimer said:
Time for "change"

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=305704#305704


Oldtimer said:
We need "CHANGE"...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=304946#304946


Oldtimer said:
We need "CHANGE"......

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303749#303749


Oldtimer said:
That needs to "CHANGE"

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303179#303179


Oldtimer said:
Time for a "CHANGE"

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303235#303235


Oldtimer said:
We need a change...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=300580#300580


Oldtimer said:
We need "CHANGE".....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=292383#292383


Oldtimer said:
Time for a Change....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=292319#292319


Oldtimer said:
we need a CHANGE.....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=291711#291711


Oldtimer said:
We need CHANGE...

http://ranchers.net/forum/post-288536.html#288536


Oldtimer said:
The only hope is a Sweeping CHANGE.....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=288747#288747


Oldtimer said:
We need a "change".....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=288259#288259


Oldtimer said:
...bring in some fresh faces, new ideas, and some major "Change".....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=293596#293596


Oldtimer said:
We definitely need a change......

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=293582#293582


Oldtimer said:
...vote for a "Change"....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=293421#293421


Oldtimer said:
It was quite apparent- they want "change".....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=288309#288309


Oldtimer said:
I'd say its time for the "change"...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=294743#294743


Oldtimer said:
I have to vote for "Change"...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303092#303092


Oldtimer said:
I am voting for CHANGE.....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=302595#302595


Oldtimer said:
their will be CHANGE in D.C...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=302161#302161


Oldtimer said:
now its time for change....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=302493#302493


Oldtimer said:
"CHANGE" is coming...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=303761#303761


Oldtimer said:
We need a "change" in directions....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=306115#306115


Oldtimer said:
This country needs "CHANGE"......

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=306932#306932


Oldtimer said:
We need a change...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=307856#307856
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan-- nope- I knew that either way I voted- on the illegal immigrant issue there would be No Change...Repubs/Bush/McBush are in the pockets of Big Business that want cheaper than dirt labor---Dems want more low income/minority folks for more voters...That was a given long before the election- especially when the Repubs chose McBushto represent them....

But the illegal problem-- and the economic problems they create has been occuring for 30+ years- and the Repubs/Bush couldn't seem to come up with an answer for the 12/8 years (6 years of which they controlled everything) they were in power...
So how long should we give them.... :???:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So how long should we give them.... :???:
I don't know. How long should we give YOU before you admit that you were duped and that you fell for Obama like a schoolgirl with her first crush?
 

Texan

Well-known member
And by the way, since you dodged this question the first time I asked it:

Since you consider yourself a big supporter of states' rights, how do you feel about your President criticizing a state for passing a law to try to protect it's citizens?

And how do you feel about your President standing up beside a foreign leader on OUR soil and siding with him in criticizing that state?

Also, tell us how you feel about having the top law enforcer in the country - Attorney General Holder - making the rounds of the talk shows threatening legal action against that state when he hasn't even read the legislation?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Texan said:
And by the way, since you dodged this question the first time I asked it:

Since you consider yourself a big supporter of states' rights, how do you feel about your President criticizing a state for passing a law to try to protect it's citizens?

And how do you feel about your President standing up beside a foreign leader on OUR soil and siding with him in criticizing that state?

Also, tell us how you feel about having the top law enforcer in the country - Attorney General Holder - making the rounds of the talk shows threatening legal action against that state when he hasn't even read the legislation?

What I find funny is that California has laws much the same as Arizona's. I also find it funny that Napitalano hasn't even read the AZ bill.

Section 834b in the California Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.


(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
And by the way, since you dodged this question the first time I asked it: Since you consider yourself a big supporter of states' rights, how do you feel about your President criticizing a state for passing a lawto tryto protect it's citizens? And how do you feel about your President standing up beside a foreign leader on OUR soil and siding with him in criticizing that state? Also, tell us how you feel about having thetop law enforcer in the country - Attorney General Holder - making the rounds of the talk shows threatening legal action against that state when he hasn't even read the legislation?

Texan-- the Arizona law is a good dog and pony show-- but the ultimate authority under the Constitution to protect our borders- and to handle citizenship and immigrant issues is with the Federal government....

Border control- Border security- and immigration are all issues that have either constitutionally or by law been put in the hands of the Federal government- not states....

Montana looked at much the same law a couple years ago- including jailing those that hired illegals--but ultimately decided the issue was a federal one- and would bankrupt the state if they triedto enforce it....

It might work great for Arizona, being within a couple hundred miles off the border-- but doesn't solve the "national" problem...

Where is Montana- or Idaho supposedto come up with the fundsto haul wetbacks thousands of milesto the Mexican border?

Its a feel good answer for them right now-- but is not solving the problem....

Why when Reagan signed the amnesty law granting 3+ million illegals amnesty- along with making it a criminal act to hire an illegal- did he- nor any President since not enforce it and start jailing those profiteering from these illegals :???: Why is the US Chamber of Commerce (which crawled in bed with the ACLU) fighting to keep the government from being able to identify those that are illegal....
That is what would end the problem....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
And by the way, since you dodged this question the first time I asked it: Since you consider yourself a big supporter of states' rights, how do you feel about your President criticizing a state for passing a lawto tryto protect it's citizens? And how do you feel about your President standing up beside a foreign leader on OUR soil and siding with him in criticizing that state? Also, tell us how you feel about having thetop law enforcer in the country - Attorney General Holder - making the rounds of the talk shows threatening legal action against that state when he hasn't even read the legislation?

Texan-- the Arizona law is a good dog and pony show-- but the ultimate authority under the Constitution to protect our borders- and to handle citizenship and immigrant issues is with the Federal government....

Border control- Border security- and immigration are all issues that have either constitutionally or by law been put in the hands of the Federal government- not states....

Montana looked at much the same law a couple years ago- including jailing those that hired illegals--but ultimately decided the issue was a federal one- and would bankrupt the state if they triedto enforce it....

It might work great for Arizona, being within a couple hundred miles off the border-- but doesn't solve the "national" problem...

Where is Montana- or Idaho supposedto come up with the fundsto haul wetbacks thousands of milesto the Mexican border?

Its a feel good answer for them right now-- but is not solving the problem....

Why when Reagan signed the amnesty law granting 3+ million illegals amnesty- along with making it a criminal act to hire an illegal- did he- nor any President since not enforce it and start jailing those profiteering from these illegals :???: Why is the US Chamber of Commerce (which crawled in bed with the ACLU) fighting to keep the government from being able to identify those that are illegal....
That is what would end the problem....

Shouldn't Montana and Idaho support Arizona in pressuring the Feds to secure the border?
 

Steve

Well-known member
fundsto haul wetbacks thousands of milesto the Mexican border?

by law all you have to do is arrest them, charge them with a crime convict them, give them the max sentence, suspend the sentence provided the leave the country, and turn them over to ICE,..

and if ICE releases them.. re arrest the convict.. I bet by then the "illegal" looking at two max terms will get bus money out of Montana..

BTW.. wet backs is not a nice term..
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer said:
Why when Reagan signed the amnesty law granting 3+ million illegals amnesty- along with making it a criminal act to hire an illegal- did he- nor any President since not enforce it and start jailing those profiteering from these illegals Say what? Why is the US Chamber of Commerce (which crawled in bed with the ACLU) fighting to keep the government from being able to identify those that are illegal....
That is what would end the problem....

the answer is simple.. no political will to do so..

the people must fight to get the power back to the people... back to the states..

looking back at Federal" laws that are not enforced, shows Arizona is taking the right step!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
And by the way, since you dodged this question the first time I asked it: Since you consider yourself a big supporter of states' rights, how do you feel about your President criticizing a state for passing a lawto tryto protect it's citizens? And how do you feel about your President standing up beside a foreign leader on OUR soil and siding with him in criticizing that state? Also, tell us how you feel about having thetop law enforcer in the country - Attorney General Holder - making the rounds of the talk shows threatening legal action against that state when he hasn't even read the legislation?
Texan-- the Arizona law is a good dog and pony show-- but the ultimate authority under the Constitutionto protect our borders- andto handle citizenship and immigrant issues is with the Federal government.... Border control- Border security- and immigration are all issues that have either constitutionally or by law been put in the hands of the Federal government- not states.... Montana looked at much the same law a couple years ago- including jailing those that hired illegals--but ultimately decided the issue was a federal one- and would bankrupt the state if they triedto enforce it.... It might work great for Arizona, being within a couple hundred miles off the border-- but doesn't solve the "national" problem... Where is Montana- or Idaho supposedto come up with the fundsto haul wetbacks thousands of milesto the Mexican border? Its a feel good answer for them right now-- but is not solving the problem.... Why when Reagan signed the amnesty law granting 3+ million illegals amnesty- along with making it a criminal actto hire an illegal- did he- nor any President since not enforce it and start jailing those profiteering from these illegals :???: Why is the US Chamber of Commerce (which crawled in bed with the ACLU) fightingto keep the government from being ableto identify those that are illegal.... That is what would end the problem....
Shouldn't Montana and Idaho support Arizona in pressuring the Fedsto secure the border?
They have-- all borders, waterways, and imported goods from foreign countries...But if I remember right- the Big Muddy's and Tams of the world were screaming about the "Forts on the borders" and the unnecessary delays/paperwork/border patrol when they did it :???: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Texan-- the Arizona law is a good dog and pony show-- but the ultimate authority under the Constitutionto protect our borders- andto handle citizenship and immigrant issues is with the Federal government.... Border control- Border security- and immigration are all issues that have either constitutionally or by law been put in the hands of the Federal government- not states.... Montana looked at much the same law a couple years ago- including jailing those that hired illegals--but ultimately decided the issue was a federal one- and would bankrupt the state if they triedto enforce it.... It might work great for Arizona, being within a couple hundred miles off the border-- but doesn't solve the "national" problem... Where is Montana- or Idaho supposedto come up with the fundsto haul wetbacks thousands of milesto the Mexican border? Its a feel good answer for them right now-- but is not solving the problem.... Why when Reagan signed the amnesty law granting 3+ million illegals amnesty- along with making it a criminal actto hire an illegal- did he- nor any President since not enforce it and start jailing those profiteering from these illegals :???: Why is the US Chamber of Commerce (which crawled in bed with the ACLU) fightingto keep the government from being ableto identify those that are illegal.... That is what would end the problem....
Shouldn't Montana and Idaho support Arizona in pressuring the Fedsto secure the border?
They have-- all borders, waterways, and imported goods from foreign countries...But if I remember right- the Big Muddy's and Tams of the world were screaming about the "Forts on the borders" and the unnecessary delays/paperwork/border patrol when they did it :???: :wink:

OT... I think you misread the question...
 

Steve

Well-known member
They have-- all borders, waterways, and imported goods from foreign countries...But if I remember right- the Big Muddy's and Tams of the world were screaming about the "Forts on the borders" and the unnecessary delays/paperwork/border patrol when they did it :???: :wink:

I am upset as well,, the forts, and necessary paperwork delays are on the wrong border.. we ain't gettin over ran from invading Canadians..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
They have-- all borders, waterways, and imported goods from foreign countries...But if I remember right- the Big Muddy's and Tams of the world were screaming about the "Forts on the borders" and the unnecessary delays/paperwork/border patrol when they did it :???: :wink:
I am upset as well,, the forts, and necessary paperwork delays are on the wrong border.. we ain't gettin over ran from invading Canadians..
So Canadian illegals- or those from every country of the world that gain entry thru Canada's lax immigration/amnesty laws are OK :???: How about Swedes? Or Polocks? I see where you are coming from-- but these illegals that are paying thousandsto get into the country aren't dumb... If you shut off one area- they moveto an easier place.... Been that way with drug smuggling for years....When they got hitting the Mexican hotspots- they started shipping itto Canada and trucking it across....If you're goingto close the borders- they all needto be done...Tight- Closed... No exception so your rich campaign contributer can get a cheap Nanny... :roll: :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, when was the last time you heard of millions of Canadians sneaking across the border?

You don't have to be Canadian to enter the US by the Canadian border....Foreign smugglers and "coyotes" use the easiest way to get their product to where they want to be....
 

Silver

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
OT, when was the last time you heard of millions of Canadians sneaking across the border?

You don't have to be Canadian to enter the US by the Canadian border....Foreign smugglers and "coyotes" use the easiest way to get their product to where they want to be....

It is the impression of most Canadians that illegals come north from the US, as well as drugs and illegal guns, etc..... due to your lax immigration standards. Did you know that there are more terrorist organizations operating within your borders than ANY country in the world? Points to ponder.
 

Steve

Well-known member
OT said:
. If you shut off one area- they move to an easier place....

so how is shutting off the hard place (Montana) and ignoring the easy place helping?


if my cow always jumps my broken fence... but never once got out of my barn...

how is me wastin a bunch of money on building a stronger new barn helping?

both my wife and my banker would laugh is I said I needed it to keep the cows from breaking out.. they would tell me to get off my butt and fix the fence.

well AZ is fixing their own fence... why complain..
 
Top