Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Immigrants Desecrate The American Flag!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Immigrants Desecrate The American Flag!

    Immigrants show their patriotism by desecrating the American flag. Typical behavior.

  • #2
    Immigrants show their patriotism by desecrating the American flag. Typical behavior.

    Comment


    • #3
      Actually, performed in the correct manner with the appropriate ceremony, burning is the preferred method for disposing of a worn US flag. Of course the key here is that the ceremony must be carried out respectfully, ie, the flag must be folded in the traditional triangle, and placed into a fire that can burn it to ashes completely. During burning a moment of silence, salute, or pledge of allegiance may be appropriate. After complete burning, the ashes should be buried. OR you can bring it to the post office, VFW post, or flag disposal box that you will often find in front of these places. More info here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc..._sup_01_4_10_1.html, http://www.essortment.com/home...icanflagol_sizv.htm, http://www.usa-flag-site.org/faq/disposal.shtml
      Always interested in the H1-B visa, the Eb-5 Visa Program and other Eb5 Investor Visa related issues.

      Comment


      • #4
        You should have read the story, it was not about a Demoncrat burning the flag, but immigrants desecrating the flag. Two different things. But both groups are enemies of the Republic.

        Comment


        • #5
          "It's not about race, it's about obeying the law"

          SB 1070's intent is clearly racist even if it doesn't mention the word race. Why add extras to the law that invite racial profiling if it wasn't meant to have that intent?

          Fortunately those extras have been found to be unconstitutional and will be upheld in the CA 9th District Court as well as the SCOTUS. All Jan Brewer will do is waste a whole load on time and money trying to defend the indefensible.
          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

          Comment


          • #6
            The Wicked Witch of the West is now gonna try and "tweak" SB 1070 instead. What strength of conviction she has in saying she'll fight it all the way...then goes and tweaks it instead. I'm really impressed by her perseverance. Smacks of political face-saving for the day when SCOTUS will uphold Judge Bolton's decision. Only one problem with the tweak:

            "Arizona democrats have no desire to help Brewer "tweak" the law. Representative Kyrsten Sinema said, "Why would we help her? This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees."

            No ruling on AZ immigration law till November; gov thinks "tweak"

            Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-R says she may make some minor revisions in Arizona's blocked immigration law because a federal court has decided not to address the controversial legislation until November.

            Governor Brewer told the Associated Press "basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she (US District Judge Susan Bolton who stopped implementation of some of the laws most inflammatory aspects) obviously pointed out faults than can be fixed, and that's what we would do."

            She said legislative leaders are considering a special session, but no particular date or action has been specified.

            Examiner.com
            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

            Comment


            • #7
              the very first (and often last) so called arugment that illegal alien supporters haul out to supposedly bolster their unpatriotic viewpoint is the term "racist." But for the umpteenth time I ask...what 'race' are illegals? I don't remember seeing them on the phylum charts.....true...they are a parasitic disease on our country, but not a race.

              Comment


              • #8

                Comment


                • #9
                  Even the Federal government says that Hispanics are not a race. So being against Hispanic illegal immigrants cannot be racism. So Brit, go back to your third world hellhole and get your free healthcare. Leave us alone.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Someone12:
                    the very first (and often last) so called arugment that illegal alien supporters haul out to supposedly bolster their unpatriotic viewpoint is the term "racist." But for the umpteenth time I ask...what 'race' are illegals? I don't remember seeing them on the phylum charts.....true...they are a parasitic disease on our country, but not a race. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    At least I answered it, with the concession to remove 'hispanics' among the types of race that I mentioned. Now, the next question to ask is: what race are the likes of S12, Fed86, and NO AMNESTY?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      sorry imbecile, but you did not answer the simplest of questions....what specific race are illegal aliens??
                      As for me, Fed and NA, well, we are of the human race, and you, well, the jury is still out....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I answered it here, idiot! http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/for...=600107605#600107605.

                        Well, as for your answer about your race, here's my take. Based on your postings, as well as Fed's and NO AMNESTY's, you make repetitious and unintelligible blabber all the time. Again and again, indiscreetly, thoughtlessly, and irritatingly like that of a barking dog's. You don't talk, you bark. Dogs bark, therefore, you're like dogs. Dogs don't have race, they've got breeds.

                        The only race that can be associated with dogs is that sometimes they're used for dog racing. But, well, these two words are of absolutely different meanings. And perhaps you know that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bring it on. Hehe!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Brit, you m.oron. It is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not the 9th District Court. Note also that the 9th Circuit upheald the Arizona E-Verify law.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
                              Brit, you m.oron. It is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not the 9th District Court. Note also that the 9th Circuit upheald the Arizona E-Verify law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              Make it "Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" to make it more official (or simply 9th Circuit for brevity).

                              And also, one can't say simply that: "the 9th Circuit upheald(sic) the Arizona E-Verify law."

                              In re: Chamber of Commerce of the US v. Candelaria, it's about the question of the compulsory use of E-Verify as provided for by the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 to discourage employing illegal workers in connection with licensing sanctions, if preempted by federal law. The circuit court held that it's not preempted, which the 9th Circuit affirmed.

                              The 9th Circuit held that the Arizona Act is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by federal law, and does not violate due process.

                              But it continued on to state that: "We uphold the statute in all respects against this facial challenge, but we must observe that it is brought against a blank factual background of enforcement and outside the context of any particular case. If and when the statute is enforced, and the factual background is developed, other challenges to the Act as applied in any particular instance or manner will "not" be controlled by our decision. (emphasis supplied)

                              The same case has been granted certiorari by the SCOTUS on June 28, 2010.

                              This doesn't look like a factual victory to me by either side, yet, I mean.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X