[Toasty]

So apparently the government is going to be taking a vote on whether or not to "allow" Puerto Rico to become a state.

Numerous times in the past, the government has opened the door, so to speak, to allow Puerto Rico to become a state. And every single time, Puerto Rico has closed said door. Yet the government is still trying to make them a state.

The lefties are probably going to claim that they're doing this because it'll force Puerto Rico to pay (in taxes) for services they already receive from the government.

But I'm pretty sure they're only doing it to broaden their pool of loyal voters.


What other groups is our current government trying to allow to vote? Prisoners, illegal aliens, and residents of Washington DC. Allowing any of them to vote would be unconstitutional for numerous reasons.


Also, I highly doubt anyone has heard anything about this HR2499 bill until just today, because they government really didn't want you to know what they were doing.

For obvious reasons.



And though I know many of you here claim that Glenn Beck is an unreliable source, I'm pretty sure he's more reliable than the left wing media groups who decided not to report on this.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2qkataAlImU



By the way, congress is voting on this HR2499 bill tomorrow today.

[Caael]

They're latino, Toasty, not the scum of the earth...

[Mallick]

Hey, do you guys want Quebec? I'm sure we can work something out. Really, I dunno. I doubt it will pass.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Apr 30 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

They're latino, Toasty, not the scum of the earth...

Where the hell did you get that from?

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, you do realize... that HR2499... is a bill that will give a referendum for Puerto Rico voters to decide for themselves what the future status of their island will be?

[Toasty]

Yes. Regardless, I still think it's a bad idea.

[Golden Legacy]

Somehow, that is not surprising.

[Toasty]

My main reason for being against this is that the liberals are only doing it to look good, and to gain the hispanic vote. Which also happens to be the main reason they want to give illegal immigrants citizenship status. They want to get as many votes possible by any means necessary. Even if it goes against the constitution.

[Ironsight]

Don't they vote on this every once in a while, and every time they do Puerto Rico votes to stay whatever it is now?

[Toasty]

Exactly. Which is one reason why I consider this a ploy by the lefties to woo the hispanics into voting for them by saying "Look! We're allowing Puerto Rico to become a state! We're so nice!"

And then they can also turn around and tell the rest of America that they're being fiscally responsible since making Puerto Rico a state means that they can impose taxes on them (for services that they already receive without paying taxes for, which is messed up in my opinion, but I digress).


Regardless, I'm sure the liberals will find some way to influence the vote in their favor and effectively make Puerto Rico a state.

There are progressives in Pureto Rico who would like to see this happen, anyway, and it's not like the progressives haven't illegally influenced a voting process before.

[Laharl]

Mike Babcock, on Apr 30 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

Hey, do you guys want Quebec? I'm sure we can work something out. Really, I dunno. I doubt it will pass.

I'm sure we can come to some kind of exchange for Wales

[Golden Legacy]

There are so many characterizations and generalizations in Toasty's "analysis", that I'm actually a bit affronted by it.

Toasty, on May 1 2010, 02:32 AM, said:

My main reason for being against this is that the liberals are only doing it to look good, and to gain the hispanic vote. Which also happens to be the main reason they want to give illegal immigrants citizenship status. They want to get as many votes possible by any means necessary. Even if it goes against the constitution.

The "liburalhs" do not need to do anything to get the Hispanic vote so long as people like you voice your continued treatment of them as a threat and an evil unnecessity.

Ironsight, on May 1 2010, 02:49 AM, said:

Don't they vote on this every once in a while, and every time they do Puerto Rico votes to stay whatever it is now?

What Puerto Rico now is a "commonwealth", which basically can be seen as an intermediary between statehood and nationhood. Independence doesn't receive as much support; the commonwealth status and statehood are usually very close, with the winning plurality or majority vote being "none of the above". There is wide inconsistency and strong sentiments on all options. Remember, that Puerto Ricans are US citizens and have many of the privileges that any of us do on the mainland. Puerto Rico has some local authority but is ultimately considered a commonwealth (almost like a colony) by the US federal government.

Toasty, on May 1 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Exactly. Which is one reason why I consider this a ploy by Evangelical right-winged white-supermacists to woo racists into voting for them by saying "Look! We're not allowing Puerto Rico to become a state! We're so nice!"

And then they can also turn around and tell the rest of America that they're being fiscally responsible since not making Puerto Rico a state means that they can end the services they receive (for services that they are already entitled to as US citizens, which is messed up in my opinion, but I digress).

Regardless, I'm sure Evangelical born-again right-wingers will find some way to tie Puerto Rico with the great "Latino threat" that will turn the US into the United Hispanic States and throw the white man into chains.

There are Evangelicals in Pureto Rico who would like to see this happen, anyway, and it's not like right-wingers haven't illegally influenced a voting process before.

Conspiracy, misinformation, exaggerations, and lies, two can work at that!

[Caael]

Toasty, on May 1 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

Where the hell did you get that from?

You said:

What other groups is our current government trying to allow to vote? Prisoners, illegal aliens, and residents of Washington DC.

[Laharl]

to be fair most Americans can't find Puerto Rico on a map.........of Puerto Rico

[My Best Wishes]

Or they think that Australia is Iraq...

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on May 1 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

There are so many characterizations and generalizations in Toasty's "analysis", that I'm actually a bit affronted by it.

The "liburalhs" do not need to do anything to get the Hispanic vote so long as people like you voice your continued treatment of them as a threat and an evil unnecessity.

What Puerto Rico now is a "commonwealth", which basically can be seen as an intermediary between statehood and nationhood. Independence doesn't receive as much support; the commonwealth status and statehood are usually very close, with the winning plurality or majority vote being "none of the above". There is wide inconsistency and strong sentiments on all options. Remember, that Puerto Ricans are US citizens and have many of the privileges that any of us do on the mainland. Puerto Rico has some local authority but is ultimately considered a commonwealth (almost like a colony) by the US federal government.

Conspiracy, misinformation, exaggerations, and lies, two can work at that!

Affronted? Really? I'm sorry the truth is so shocking to you.

Read final statement

I'm well aware of this, but last I checked, "commonwealth's" couldn't vote in general elections (primary elections, yes. But not the general election). Like for the President of the United States, or Congressmen.
The Liberals in the government want to make sure that they lock in the Presidency for the next eon so they can have their way with country. And to do so, they'll tear the Constitution to shreds and allow people who should never be given the right to vote (illegal immigrants, citizens of Washington DC, prisoners, and citizens of commonwealth societies), the right to vote in both primary and general elections. It's underhanded, it's devious, and it goes against everything the founding fathers stood for.

I honestly believe that the majority of the Liberals in congress either don't have the country's best interest at heart, they're being duped into doing what they're doing, or they simply think they know better than the American people what would be best for them, and are acting as such.

All of which are ridiculous.


It only seems like a conspiracy theory to you because you're so far left that you associate mainstream sentiments as radical babblings.
I don't believe in nay kind of "Latino Threat" (great talking point there. I'm guessing you got it from the Times?). I do believe in an illegal immigrant threat, though, and I do think it needs to be taken care of. The fact that most illegal immigrants are Latinos doesn't really matter. Illegals are illegals. They need to be deported regardless of where they're from.

I also like how you didn't have an actual argument to make against what I said, so you simply took what I said and mocked me with it. Good going there.

Caael, on May 1 2010, 10:03 AM, said:

Toasty, on Apr 30 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

Where the hell did you get that from?

Toasty, on Apr 30 2010, 12:46 AM, said:

What other groups is our current government trying to allow to vote? Prisoners, illegal aliens, and residents of Washington DC.

That's the stupidest observation I've ever seen. It's like you completely disregarded the fact that "Washington DC" was in there too.


I'm really starting to get pissed at all of you brainwashed lefties who automatically associate "We don't want illegals in our country" with "We hate Latinos." You've been SO CONVINCED by the left wing media that conservatives are racist, that you instantly associate anything they say about Hispanics with racism. Heck, I could call them the "Master Race" for Christ's sake and you'd still call me a bigoted hate-monger.

[Caael]

Toasty, on May 3 2010, 04:53 AM, said:

That's the stupidest observation I've ever seen. It's like you completely disregarded the fact that "Washington DC" was in there too.


I'm really starting to get pissed at all of you brainwashed lefties who automatically associate "We don't want illegals in our country" with "We hate Latinos." You've been SO CONVINCED by the left wing media that conservatives are racist, that you instantly associate anything they say about Hispanics with racism. Heck, I could call them the "Master Race" for Christ's sake and you'd still call me a bigoted hate-monger.

Hate to be the one to tell you this Toasty, but I dont read or watch left wing media. Unbiased, neutral BBC for me I'm afraid. Nice try though.

The reason I came to that conclusion I'd have thought was pretty obvious. You've put Latino's in the same category as criminals. If you're going to say stupid things expect repercussions.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on May 2 2010, 11:53 PM, said:

I'm well aware of this, but last I checked, "commonwealth's" couldn't vote in general elections (primary elections, yes. But not the general election). Like for the President of the United States, or Congressmen

And they will continue to not vote in general elections, as their commonwealth status states, and that will change only when their status changes. Puerto Ricans do have an elected representative though and they have served and died in the military. They have given just as much in most regards as any citizen on the mainland. Puerto Rico has for 100 years been the equivalent of a territorial status, longer than any entity that has ever been associated with the United States. The Philippines gained their independence; Alaska and Hawaii became states. Puerto Rico's status has not been resolved, and the benefits to finally settling it, whether as a state, independent nation, or some other intermediary, would help both sides, and especially the people of Puerto Rico, to allow for sustained economic growth.

Quote

The Liberals in the government want to make sure that they lock in the Presidency for the next eon so they can have their way with country. And to do so, they'll tear the Constitution to shreds and allow people who should never be given the right to vote (illegal immigrants, citizens of Washington DC, prisoners, and citizens of commonwealth societies), the right to vote in both primary and general elections. It's underhanded, it's devious, and it goes against everything the founding fathers stood for.

1) I highly doubt you can speak for what the Founding Fathers wanted.
2) I highly doubt you can quote, without searching, the relevant clauses of the Constitution.
3) I highly doubt you care or even know what the Constitution says, given your track record of favoring the deterioration of civil liberties and right to habeus corpus.
4) I highly doubt you realize the irony of generalizing about others while whining about others generalizing about you.

Quote

I honestly believe that the majority of the Liberals in congress either don't have the country's best interest at heart, they're being duped into doing what they're doing, or they simply think they know better than the American people what would be best for them, and are acting as such.

Every Republican president since the 1972 reelection of Nixon has supported the right of Puerto Rico to become a state if they so choose to do so.

Quote

It only seems like a conspiracy theory to you because you're so far left that you associate mainstream sentiments as radical babblings.

Forgive me for believing that anyone who considers modern science as immoral and heretic, and touts the Bible as a legitimate historical and viable source to predict world events, as possessing radical beliefs. I assure you that under no circumstance, not even your twisted manipulation that creates arguments and fabrications for the people you disagree with, would in anyway favor your usual positions on most topics as "mainstream" - not in this topic, not in any other one we've had.

Quote

I do believe in an illegal immigrant threat, though, and I do think it needs to be taken care of. The fact that most illegal immigrants are Latinos doesn't really matter. Illegals are illegals. They need to be deported regardless of where they're from.

This topic is about Puerto Rico, the people of which are US citizens, not illegal immigrants.

Quote

I'm really starting to get pissed at all of you brainwashed lefties who automatically associate "We don't want illegals in our country" with "We hate Latinos." You've been SO CONVINCED by the left wing media that conservatives are racist, that you instantly associate anything they say about Hispanics with racism. Heck, I could call them the "Master Race" for Christ's sake and you'd still call me a bigoted hate-monger.

"I HATE IT WHEN OTHER PEOPLE MAKE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT ME SO I'M GOING TO MAKE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT THEM" - Toasty

[Toasty]

Funny thing is, it's not a generalization.

And besides accusing me of knowing nothing about the constitution, you have failed to make a valid argument to my point.

I have no problem with Puerto Rico becoming a state. I do, however, have a problem with the dems trying to get Puerto Rico to become a state just so they can get more votes.


Also, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers wouldn't want people manipulating an election just to get a certain person elected/re-elected. Whether said person was suitable for the position or not.

Caael, on May 3 2010, 03:26 AM, said:

Hate to be the one to tell you this Toasty, but I dont read or watch left wing media. Unbiased, neutral BBC for me I'm afraid. Nice try though.

The reason I came to that conclusion I'd have thought was pretty obvious. You've put Latino's in the same category as criminals. If you're going to say stupid things expect repercussions.

I take back my previous statement. THIS is the stupidest observation I've ever seen.

BBC will be unbiased the day pigs fly.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on May 10 2010, 02:39 AM, said:

Funny thing is, it's not a generalization.

When you group all people who have left-wing ideologies and accuse them of all accusing you and your views as being racist, that is a generalization. You can't have it both ways. Either you're opposed to generalization, in which case you stop grouping and labeling all people you disagree with characterizations, or you're ok with generalizations, in which case you open yourself up to having your views generalized too.

Quote

And besides accusing me of knowing nothing about the constitution, you have failed to make a valid argument to my point.

I absolutely did make a valid argument. You bring up the Constitution without clarifying or referring to the actual clause or amendment that supports your claims. I also pointed out, correctly, that your previous support of giving the government the right to wiretap and spy on its citizens, as well as jailing people indefinitely and not giving them the right to a trial, as being inconsistent with the values of Constitution, which guarantees all people the right to privacy and the right to due process of law.

Quote

I have no problem with Puerto Rico becoming a state. I do, however, have a problem with the dems trying to get Puerto Rico to become a state just so they can get more votes.

This is contradictory. You have no problem with Puerto Rico becoming a state through a legal voting process, then accuse it of being beneficial to the party you disagree with despite them going through this same legal voting process.

There is no basis here, as it also fails to explain why both Republican and Democratic party platforms have endorsed a Puerto Rico referendum and statehood if they so vote. (Reason: it's an issue of national significance, not of a party)

Quote

Also, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers wouldn't want people manipulating an election just to get a certain person elected/re-elected.

... Ok. I'm sure they wouldn't.

Quote

BBC will be unbiased the day pigs fly.

There is never a source in existence that would be free of claims of bias.

[Caael]

BBC is as unbias as you can get, especially during the election campaign they did a brilliant job of remaining fair. They do a FAR better job of it than any American media, regardless.

[Laharl]

Toasty wouldnt know neutral if he lived in Switzerland

[Mallick]

Toasty could have discovered the atom and still not know what neutral is.

[Legolastom]

Mike Babcock, on Jun 30 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

Toasty could have discovered the atom and still not know what neutral is.

And it only took you two months to come up with that one, well done!

[Laharl]

the man's got dedication!

[Mallick]

Legolastom, on Jun 30 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

And it only took you two months to come up with that one, well done!

There were a lot of late nights bro ):