Should Trump call Cruz by his real name - Rafael??

why do that , Ted is a good guy and calling him 'rafael' wouldn't bother ME a Conservative !!
 
tumblr_m7nancEqkv1rqfhi2o1_500.gif
 
Rafael is ashamed of his Hispanic roots. That's why he Anglicized his name and hates immigrants.
 
Rafael is ashamed of his Hispanic roots. That's why he Anglicized his name and hates immigrants.
Why do you claim to be a conservative but repeat all the lefts bullshit rhetoric?
 
Rafael is ashamed of his Hispanic roots. That's why he Anglicized his name and hates immigrants.
Why do you claim to be a conservative but repeat all the lefts bullshit rhetoric?
I am poking a stick at the bigots, psychos, hypocrites, and liars who have infected and destroyed the conservative brand.

They deserve it.
 
Rafael is ashamed of his Hispanic roots. That's why he Anglicized his name and hates immigrants.
What's wrong with Anglicization? Why is it at all shameful to assimilate and integrate oneself into society?

Anyway, if there were a clever way of bringing it up, of course Trump should do it. Especially if Cruz ever made a point of called the President "B. Hussein Obama."
 
Rafael is ashamed of his Hispanic roots. That's why he Anglicized his name and hates immigrants.
What's wrong with Anglicization? Why is it at all shameful to assimilate and integrate oneself into society?

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Our ability to take in every culture on Earth is what makes America exceptional.

I find it amazing that a Cuban refugee creeps into the US from Canada with his son from a country which once attempted to aim nuclear weapons at the heart of our nation and took us to the brink of global annihilation, and now we are seriously thinking about giving that son our nuclear missile codes.

And yet this same son doesn't want to let any refugees into America.

He doesn't just deserve to be poked with a stick, he clearly already has one up his ass.
 
Rafael is ashamed of his Hispanic roots. That's why he Anglicized his name and hates immigrants.
What's wrong with Anglicization? Why is it at all shameful to assimilate and integrate oneself into society?

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Our ability to take in every culture on Earth is what makes America exceptional.

I find it amazing that a Cuban refugee creeps into the US from Canada with his son from a country which once attempted to aim nuclear weapons at the heart of our nation and took us to the brink of global annihilation, and now we are seriously thinking about giving that son our nuclear missile codes.

And yet this same son doesn't want to let any refugees into America.

He doesn't just deserve to be poked with a stick, he clearly already has one up his ass.
Well there are clear differences between Syrian and Cuban refugees. I don't know that Cruz has given a justification for the disparity in response, but I think there's a good argument for preferring minimal geographic displacement of refugees. Cuba is so close to the United States, we have long taken responsibility for the geopolitical issues of our hemisphere, etc.

Further, it's rather expensive to relocate, house, care for, and monitor refugees that come to the United States. Would that same amount of money have greater effect if used to fund the infrastructure to deal with the refugees closer to their home? In other words, can't we save more lives if we help Middle Eastern nations take in these refugees?

It obviously isn't ideal, but given the limited resources, this seems like a triage situation, where your first priority must be getting as many refugees as possible into habitable conditions, even if that means refugee camps that seem borderline inhumane from our perspective. Once the flow of new refugees fleeing danger is adequately dealt with, then work to ameliorate their conditions, perhaps by relocation to developed nations.
 
Further, it's rather expensive to relocate, house, care for, and monitor refugees that come to the United States. Would that same amount of money have greater effect if used to fund the infrastructure to deal with the refugees closer to their home? In other words, can't we save more lives if we help Middle Eastern nations take in these refugees?

Why does america have to do anything? These phony "refugees' are NOT escaping oppression. They are simply poor and their own country refuses to take care of them and tells them to go somewhere else. It's the same situation as with the illegals invading us from latin america.
 
Further, it's rather expensive to relocate, house, care for, and monitor refugees that come to the United States. Would that same amount of money have greater effect if used to fund the infrastructure to deal with the refugees closer to their home? In other words, can't we save more lives if we help Middle Eastern nations take in these refugees?

Why does america have to do anything? These phony "refugees' are NOT escaping oppression. They are simply poor and their own country refuses to take care of them and tells them to go somewhere else. It's the same situation as with the illegals invading us from latin america.
Oh, I generally agree. I should have been more clear. My point is, even if you were to accept that these people are all refugees fleeing oppression and that the United States has some responsibility to help, the humanitarian thing to do isn't to import thousands of Syrians to the United States at great expense, when you'd get a much better "lives saved to dollars spent" ratio through the funding of refugee camps in the nearest safe areas to the conflict zone.
 

Forum List

Back
Top