If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Banks are a convenient whipping boy. They always have been, going back to the days when charging interest was considered by Christians to be a sin (usury).
Quoted for truth. When somebody gets into trouble by overspending, whether it is a homeowner who got a zero down loan or a country that incurred huge debts, there is a rush to blame the money lender and not the money spender. Weird.
I think the dynamic between Turkey and Germany right now is relevant right now. Merkel's actions in trying to get Turkey to absorb as many Syrians as possible suggest that she does not want to resettle as many foreigners as possible to turn them into voters.
Overall I don't see the details you see, and I have been to London multiple times in the past ten years, but certainly agree with the big-picture idea that Europe is really struggling to absorb Muslims. Those two groups are a very bad fit to coexist with each other. European countries are single-culture, mostly, but ageing out and in truth in need of young workers to keep their economies going. Europeans may be uncomfortable with immigrants, as there is no long tradition of welcoming them like in Canada, the US or Australia, but if they want someone to work at the corner store and do dishes in restaurants and all that, they're going to have to get used to it.
They are both part of the same core policy of changing the country's political composition via demographic replacement. - no doubt about it, this is going to be a majority brown country in our lifetimes. That's somebody's core policy? Dunno about that. I don't see a point in looking for somebody to blame. It just is what it is given geography and economics.
That's what Simpson-Mazzoli (1986) was supposed to be. "Okay you guys who are here now can stay, but this is it -- last time". Forgive me if I don't trust Washington politicians' pinky swear to enforce our immigration laws when they promised they were going to do it last time and they haven't done it for 15 years.
If we do another round of amnesty, it's permanent one party rule in the country. Take any state where a Republican hasn't won by double digits in the past 20 years (e.g. Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, etc) and it's permanent Democrat. Florida especially. It will be another California.
I don't care who you trust. My opinion on the matter was asked, and I gave it.
I have to say that I do find it somewhat funny though...people with your attitude are the reason nothing gets done, because the only solution you'll support is an untenable one. Then you blame everybody else for the status quo. I guess if staying angry is the true goal, you're in the sweet spot.
As for a permanent voter shift...maybe the GOP should try to win their votes with a less-exclusive approach. What a novel concept.
Last edited by Wild Hoss; June 10, 2016, 04:58 PM.
I don't care who you trust. My opinion on the matter was asked, and I gave it.
I have to say that I do find it somewhat funny though...people with your attitude are the reason nothing gets done, because the only solution you'll support is an untenable one. Then you blame everybody else for the status quo.
I guess if staying angry is the true goal, you're in the sweet spot.
I don't care who you trust. My opinion on the matter was asked, and I gave it.
I have to say that I do find it somewhat funny though...people with your attitude are the reason nothing gets done, because the only solution you'll support is an untenable one. Then you blame everybody else for the status quo. I guess if staying angry is the true goal, you're in the sweet spot.
As for a permanent voter shift...maybe the GOP should try to win their votes with a less-exclusive approach. What a novel concept.
Ahhh yes, the timeless call for compromise. That's why Simpson-Mazzoli was. We wouldn't export all of the illegals but we wouldn't let any more in. Turns out, the compromisers were suckers. You think my solution is untenable? It depends on attitudes. Personally, I think that the compromise approach of "let's give them amnesty but we promise to never to do it again" is untenable. We have already tried that. I know that the promise to secure the borders would be broken. I would bet my life on it. If you ask me, building a wall, ending sanctuary cities, banning illegal aliens from using our emergency rooms, and penalizing employers who hire illegals is a pretty good compromise. But in your view, that's an extremist position (tell me again how Open Borders is just a stawman that nobody actually supports?)
As far as your last comment goes -- thanks for confirming previous remark about how smug Liberals are reminding us that uncontrolled immigration is just the new way and all of you racist bigots better get used to it.
So deal with it, grant amnesty for those here working with no criminal record, and clamp down hard on the border. From then on, its no-bullshit, immigration-by-the-law.
I agree, and I tried not to change the meaning of your post. I just don't think we will ever have the willingness to enforce immigration-by-the-law. "Comprehensive immigration reform" was specifically rejected by the Congress and the President simply instituted his vision by diktat.
Hannibal says the unsayable. These are undocumented Democrats and the intent is clear: single-party rule. The same is happening in the EU.
Let me propose a solution to you progressives. What if only net tax payers were given the franchise to vote? Then the people paying the bills would be making the decisions. Rather than worry about the impact of the undocumented, let's just be sure that those who want "free stuff" don't vote. And let's allow those who are producing to vote. I've always found this proposal a way to find out where the bear shit in the buckwheat with progressives.
The entire Progressive MO has been to water down the requirements for voting. And The "reactionaries" like myself are all about "voter suppression". If we oppose "anyone, any time, any method" then we are bigots.
Hannibal says the unsayable. These are undocumented Democrats and the intent is clear: single-party rule. The same is happening in the EU.
Please have the facts. Europe's fertility rate is below replacement level and that is where the immigration discussion starts there. That is why there is suddenly any immigration at all. Merkel's party isn't even a leftist one, and left-right politics in Europe have much less of the values-infused stuff that American politics do. Europe has a racist fringe and then everyone else on the political spectrum is just uncomfortable around foreigners, including other white people. Save for the UK which is somewhat more diverse.
Let me propose a solution to you progressives. What if only net tax payers were given the franchise to vote? Then the people paying the bills would be making the decisions. Rather than worry about the impact of the undocumented, let's just be sure that those who want "free stuff" don't vote. And let's allow those who are producing to vote. I've always found this proposal a way to find out where the bear shit in the buckwheat with progressives.
The entire Progressive MO has been to water down the requirements for voting. And The "reactionaries" like myself are all about "voter suppression". If we oppose "anyone, any time, any method" then we are bigots.
Awful solution, move on. so when you say watered down the vote, is getting rid of Jim Crow laws and Women suffrage part of that watering down? Did you think the poll tax was a good idea?
Ahhh yes, the timeless call for compromise. That's why Simpson-Mazzoli was. We wouldn't export all of the illegals but we wouldn't let any more in. Turns out, the compromisers were suckers. You think my solution is untenable? It depends on attitudes. Personally, I think that the compromise approach of "let's give them amnesty but we promise to never to do it again" is untenable. We have already tried that. I know that the promise to secure the borders would be broken. I would bet my life on it. If you ask me, building a wall, ending sanctuary cities, banning illegal aliens from using our emergency rooms, and penalizing employers who hire illegals is a pretty good compromise. But in your view, that's an extremist position (tell me again how Open Borders is just a stawman that nobody actually supports?)
As far as your last comment goes -- thanks for confirming previous remark about how smug Liberals are reminding us that uncontrolled immigration is just the new way and all of you racist bigots better get used to it.
Lets just agree not to discuss this matter any further. I cannot debate a person who invents his reality, and mine.
I agree, and I tried not to change the meaning of your post. I just don't think we will ever have the willingness to enforce immigration-by-the-law. "Comprehensive immigration reform" was specifically rejected by the Congress and the President simply instituted his vision by diktat.
Well, you didn't really ask me what I thought was possible.
If you had, I'd say...essentially nothing. One cannot find middle ground when one side is untethered from reality and rejects any compromise on the grounds that its a political ploy buy the opposing party. So here we are. Still.
Let me propose a solution to you progressives. What if only net tax payers were given the franchise to vote? Then the people paying the bills would be making the decisions. Rather than worry about the impact of the undocumented, let's just be sure that those who want "free stuff" don't vote. And let's allow those who are producing to vote. I've always found this proposal a way to find out where the bear shit in the buckwheat with progressives.
The entire Progressive MO has been to water down the requirements for voting. And The "reactionaries" like myself are all about "voter suppression". If we oppose "anyone, any time, any method" then we are bigots.
I say we go further. We should judge people's worthiness by how much they make as well. Some animals are more equal than others after all.
If you had, I'd say...essentially nothing. One cannot find middle ground when one side is untethered from reality and rejects any compromise on the grounds that its a political ploy buy the opposing party. So here we are. Still.
I say we go further. We should judge people's worthiness by how much they make as well. Some animals are more equal than others after all.
Never a response to the proposal. Always a personal attack. It is always "Come let us reason together and use the dialectic method to compromise, you racist, homophobic, narcissistic, rich bigot."
The reason that you won't respond is that you know that politics in this country has devolved into one party representing the takers, and the other representing the producers. Your ties to the takers creates a problem for you and for all progressives. That is why you cannot debate any reasonable proposal of a way to handle my concern about intentionally "packing" the electorate like FDR tried to do with the Supreme Court in the 1930's.
I know that the promise to secure the borders would be broken. I would bet my life on it. If you ask me, building a wall, ending sanctuary cities, banning illegal aliens from using our emergency rooms, and penalizing employers who hire illegals is a pretty good compromise. But in your view, that's an extremist position (tell me again how Open Borders is just a stawman that nobody actually supports?)
How about not attacking Hannibal personally and dealing with his suggestion.
Last edited by Da Geezer; June 10, 2016, 08:20 PM.
1 building a wall is a giant waste of money. Tunnels are already in place, and the walls will be breached in about 10 minutes. Just ask the Chinese about college their wall.
2. I'm fine with ending "sanctuary cities", although I don't know why you would order city workers to do the Feds job.
3. I don't know how you could ban undocumented aliens from emergency rooms. How does one propose banning an illegal alien from emergency rooms? Posting ICE officers at every emergency room, or do we train doctors to become immigration officers too?
4. Employers are already penalized for hiring undocumented workers.
Tweet
Comment