Posted on 12/20/2010 4:22:05 AM PST by Carbonsteel
“This is war!” claims Phoenix student Aldemar Cruz. “Republicans may have stopped the DREAM Act, but they won’t prevent La Reconquista from happening. “White people, watch out!”
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
You think the illegals are going to take an oath of allegiance to this country?>>
Well, if they don’t THEN throw them out. Once amnesty is offered and refused, it’s a whole different ball game.
But they will. “Paris is worth a Mass.”
And half of those here “want” to round them all up like Romans.
Neither side “gets” what they “want.” (But if you try sometime....)
Everybody “wants” what they can’t get.
Bounties work for predatory beasts, whether on four legs or two. Another fact.>>
You here are directly calling for the killing of human beings (”the two legged”) and for other (white?) people to get paid for killing them.
I could use many words to describe that but I will not pollute the term “conservative.” That’s not conservative.
I’m not implying. I merely hold up a mirror.
Let me add: an aggressive program of anglification and assimilation must go hand in hand with the amnesty to prevent a lot of the cultural problems you describe here. Let ‘em know that if they want to stay they need to learn English, first of all, followed by make sure their kids go to school.
We’ll have generations of problem, yes. But those problems will go away.
Do you know the term “paddy wagon”? It’s an anti-Irish slur. The Irish that came to the US after the potato famine in relatively huge numbers were ignorant, unlettered, and (thanks to systematic undernourishment) of less than average intelligence. The “Shanty Irish” were viewed as “the other black race”. Heavy drinkers, adherents of Romanism, drunken rioters, violent, sexually uncontrolled peasants from the back woods of Connaught.
But time passed. They had kids. And they had kids. Eventually one became President. Today anti-Irish bigotry is unheard of. It took a century and a half, but the Irish (who were thought impossible to assimilate) were assimilated.
But one way to keep them in their shanties would have been to declare “open season” on them and make them eternally afraid of the rest of the country. We didn’t do that to them; they assimilated. We shouldn’t do that to the Hispanics. (And the vast majority of Hispanics are here *legally*.)
It will take a century or so to assimilate these people. But we can, and should, assimilate them.
I never said that amnesty was gonna be easy. But it beats, er, hunting the two legged with bounties.
We are a republic of sovereign states. It is the responsibilities of the citizens of each State to defend their own state's Constitution and government, and I wouldn't count on the federal government coming to the aid of say, Arizona in the event that these "reconquistas" staged an armed revolt there. Maybe that sounds harsh, but it appears to be the political reality we face right now.
We are a republic of sovereign states. >>
No we are not, that was settled at the Second Constitutional Convention held at Gettysburg on July 1-3, 1863. The Motion by Mr. Pickett in support of human slavery, the basis of which the entire convention was gathered, was voted down overwhelmingly.
I am an American. I am a resident of the state I live in. And so are you.
You mindlessly advocate a view of the Constitution that is not in keeping with reality, sir.
Yep.
Ghotier room!
I thought it was the Catholics, gentlemen, who could not tolerate heresy....
There are endless arguments here as strategic and tactical arguments between team members.
You are trying to come in as an adversary and change the entire game plan. That is neither welcome nor helpful.
If you don't plan to change your opinions that is fine. Just find another forum to discuss them. They are not welcome here.
When a man is driving off of a cliff, it is not ‘changing the game plan’ to suggest that the brakes be hit.
Your game plan is one of violence and disaster mixed with impracticality. It ain’t never gonna happen (thanks be to the risen Christ) and even if, God forbid, it did, it would not achieve the end you seek.
I am conservative in that I want to maintain the government and the Constitution. Your solution would do neither, it would only achieve endless turmoil and profound injustice.
I am a conservative. Whether you like to hear it or not, I am one of you, most ways. But perhaps you need to hear from one of “us” because you certainly won’t hear it from one of “them.” (And “their” solution—amnesty plus NO border control—is just as bad as yours.)
I don’t care if it’s not “welcome.” It needs to be said and you guys need to start engaging in a little bit of doubt.
Doubt, rightly used, could have saved this world endless grief. (Hiroshima might not have melted if someone had the courage to say to the Japanese naval leadership in ‘41, “Guys, ya think maybe this isn’t such a good idea?”)
Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We're here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We're not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.
That was payback to the Mesicans for Goliad and the Battle of the Alamo.
It took a grand total of 18 min. to win that battle.
That's when the Texans kicked the Mexican army's butt out of Texas. We ceased being part of Mexico. After that, anyone that continued to live here was a Texan, not Mesican.
The mesican army was lucky the Texans left any of them alive to go back to Mexico.
The reality is that either the Constitution is an enduring document or it is not. If it is, then it is still in effect as it was understood to be at the time it was ratified.
Your "reality" is a lot of ephemeral sophistry.
Bounties were a part of American law.
Until the citizens allowed commies in media and education to brainwash us, it was accepted that any violent criminal, or any escaping criminal took his own life in his hands when he committed the crime.
When a citizen was forced, by the criminal act of the criminal, to kill the criminal it was accepted that the criminal had signed his own death warrant.
When a citizen shoots a criminal (of ANY color, race, etc) that citizen is acting within Judeo-Christian, American, and Natural Law. When that citizen kills a criminal, the killing of said criminal saves the community the cost of trail and execution or long incarceration.
On what basis do you find Judeo-Christian and American Law to be in error on the issue of bounties or the citizen killing a criminal who is a threat to life and/or property?
I would be interested in specific theological or legal sources, if you have them at hand.
Excellent, bring it on. Tell them to get with the program. They have no idea of what they are about to do. We shall clean this mess up in a hurry, and we wont hear any more about it for about 100 years.
That’s the spirit. You are correct. I do overlook that there is a good segment of people there struggling to hang on to the state.
Operative word being “were”.
I agree with Admiral Piet: “Bounty hunters. We don’t need those scum!”
If you believe that we’re a confederacy of sovereign states, you’re not even a conservative, you’re a reactionary.
And yes, the meaning of the Constitution is changed—by its amendments. Or do you still think that blacks are 3/5ths of a man?
Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists>>>
A traditional grassroot conservative is not one who advocates locking and loading and rounding up their neighbors at gunpoint without more.
A traditional grassroot conservative supports the United States Constitution, not the Confederate Constitution, not the Articles of Confederacy, and supports ALL of it, not just the portion he happens to like while disregarding whatever admendments offend his neoconfederate fantasies.
A traditional grassroot conservative does not view non-criminals—objectively so, those who are not chargable with any crime recognized in a federal or state lawbook—as criminals.
A traditional grassroot conservative does not hold, much less express, hatred or bigotry toward hispanics, blacks, or Catholics.
Once individuals holding those views are purged from this board, then perhaps you and I can continue any discussion on what constitutes a “traditional grassroot conservative.”
I think there's nothing in the historical record to support the implicit argument that the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment intended for it to legitimize "anchor babies" and frustrate immigration control.
There's "original intent" and then there's "textualism". I belive in original intent. You apparently believe in textualism without any consideration of intent or context.
You submit your interpretation is more "conservative" than mine. Explain why your textualist interpretation is more "conservative" than an original intent interpretation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.