Thanks for the opportunity to change the topic back... On Apr 17, 6:51 am, [email protected] wrote: > www.problemfixed.info/maurleensimpson"Because I was excited about writing > this article, I hastily convened "The View", my insightful and sassy > girlfriends at work. I asked Cristina, a naturalized American citizen, if > naturalized Americans should have the right to run for the presidency of the > United States. She immediately opined that naturalized citizens should have > the exact same opportunities and rights that native born Americans have. > Cristina was born in Portugal; however, she was raised and educated in the > United States. Recently, she returned from Portugal after living there for > eleven years with her son, husband and mother. She, like millions of other > naturalized citizens, proudly took the Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized > Citizens and renounced her fidelity to any other sovereign nation besides The > United States of America. Despite this solemn oath and Cristina's > unquestionable love of this country, she admitted that she has a strong > visceral connection to her native country , and this connection could be > appropriately characterized as loyalty. Apparently, this loyalty to another > sovereign entity is an execrable breach of her Oath of Allegiance. It seems > that Cristina is the prototypical naturalized citizen who is metaphorically > two timing the U.S.A. because a naturalized citizens are not unequivocally > and decisively loyal to the U.S.A. when confronted with a conflict that > involves the U.S.A. and their native country. I asked Cris if she were > president, could she attack or penalize Portugal? She hesitated, paused and > looked bewildered. But the president of The United States cannot hesitate, > pause or look bewildered because of a visceral loyalty to another country. > First and foremost, the president of the United States must elevate and > promote the needs of the United States of America above all others. In other > words this pre-eminent responsibility eclipses all > otherswww.problemfixed.info/maurleensimpson > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Travis <[email protected]> > > Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:33:05 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: If you didn't protest Bush's deficits then don't protest Obama's > > The only reason we have any deficits is that we have runaway govt spending > on massive nanny-state useless and worthless socialist programs and a > congress that wont stop it because they are only interested in getting their > sorry asses re-elected and nothing else. > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > Bush had deficits because he had irresponsible tax cuts during a time > > of war and irresponsible spending that did not invest in America's > > future. > > > Obama will allow Bush's irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy > > sunset, is helping the working middle class under siege by > > Bush irresponsible economic policies and investing heavily > > in Americas future. > > > Big difference. > > > On Apr 16, 5:31 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > seems to be many Democrats logic... The flip side of course "if you > > > protested Bush's deficits, then why are they NOT protesting Obama's > > > deficit???" Which of course the Democrats REFUSE to answer -- to do > > > so demands they label themselves hypocrites... > > -- > *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
