WhoSane Obama ADMITS he isnt from America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Busybody]

Obama: “Unless You Were A Native American, You Came From Someplace Else”…




Like, say, Kenya?

Via Washington Examiner:


This afternoon in Las Vegas, President Obama reminded most American citizens that they were descended from immigrants themselves. [...]

It’s really important to remember our history, Obama continued. “Unless you were one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else, somebody brought you,” he said.

 

[laurasunshinegal]

wow. just wow.

 

[Busybody]

yup

I agree

He finally admits the truth!

 

[unregistered]

 

[imalickin]

I was born here and claim no association with the deadbeat Irishmen that were ship over here on prison ships.

 

[renard_ruse]

First off, the term "Native American" when used only from those of American Indian ancestry is deeply offensive to the rest of the population which was born in the country and is equally "Native American." Native means born in a geographic area. Using the term solely for American Indians is intended to strip legitimacy from everybody else who have no other country or homeland, most of whom have had ancestors here for up to several hundred years and many generations. People whose culture is distinctly derived from this continent and its history just like first nations, just later historically. (Also, I'm still trying to figure out how or why first nations benefit from immigration, but that's another subject).

Putting aside this term, however, the basic statement He made (and oft repeated) is factually and legally inaccurate. Again, anyone born in a country is not an "immigrant." That is LEGAL fact. Further, its quite possible for someone's bloodline(s) to descent from COLONISTS and thus not be descended from "immigrants." A COLONIST was not an "immigrant," its a completely different legal and historical status.

Finally, what the hell difference would it make even if His statement were historically or factually accurate? Because immigration was allowed to varying degrees in the past has NOTHING to do with whether it is of benefit now or in the future. What other issue in current public policy debate based solely on whether something was or wasn't done in the past? I won't even bring up examples, because the whole argument is absurd. You don't base future public policy on whether or not it made sense in some bygone era.

Shame on Obama for sinking to the lowest, most factually and logically stupid arguments of the open borders advocates. You would think He could at least come up with some better debate points.

 

[phrodeau]

He said you were a foreigner, not him, DUMMY!

 

[renard_ruse]

So what if immigration was permitted or restricted to various degress in the past (it actually varied over time from fairly open to fairly restricted).

Since when does having done something in the past mean it precludes a change in policy now or in the future? I won't even make the argument there was slavery in the past, so does that mean we have to have it today and in the future? Its too dumb an argument to bother with.

 

[Ishmael]

He said you were a foreigner, not him, DUMMY!

So which half of him is the native, the black or the white?

Ishmael

 

[badbabysitter]

First off, the term "Native American" when used only from those of American Indian ancestry is deeply offensive to the rest of the population which was born in the country and is equally "Native American." Native means born in a geographic area. Using the term solely for American Indians is intended to strip legitimacy from everybody else who have no other country or homeland, most of whom have had ancestors here for up to several hundred years and many generations. People whose culture is distinctly derived from this continent and its history just like first nations, just later historically. (Also, I'm still trying to figure out how or why first nations benefit from immigration, but that's another subject).

Putting aside this term, however, the basic statement He made (and oft repeated) is factually and legally inaccurate. Again, anyone born in a country is not an "immigrant." That is LEGAL fact. Further, its quite possible for someone's bloodline(s) to descent from COLONISTS and thus not be descended from "immigrants." A COLONIST was not an "immigrant," its a completely different legal and historical status.

--------

Shame on Obama for sinking to the lowest, most factually and logically stupid arguments of the open borders advocates. You would think He could at least come up with some better debate points.

First off, a " native american" wouldnt call themselves a " native american".. they are First Nations People

only idiots like you call them Native Americans or Native Indians or Indians


you're bitching about somebody making logically stupid arguements? your entire opening bit was competely fallacious

just because you dont understand an allegory, doesnt mean other people don't

 

[badbabysitter]

Since when does having done something in the past mean it precludes a change in policy now or in the future? I won't even make the argument there was slavery in the past, so does that mean we have to have it today and in the future? Its too dumb an argument to bother with.

look up Israel and get back to me on this

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

lol @ this shit

 

[Busybody]

WhoSane Obama shames us all!

except the FREE PHONE "people"

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

WhoSane Obama shames us all!

except the FREE PHONE "people"

free phone people? what you mean by that.

 

[Busybody]

and the DOPES

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

??????????

 

[Busybody]

see what I mean