Posted on 02/04/2013 12:52:47 PM PST by Biggirl
Go troll elsewhere, your responses have become increasingly delusional. Time to get some help from your attendents! You’ve really become like the despicable crooks that like ticks moved from the dead Whig to the dying Republican Party...the same ones that put the Reagan hating Bushes in the White House.
Try not to take Reagan's name in vain when it is thoroughly established by your posts that you are a paleopeacecreep, an anti-Semite, an anti-Catholic bigot and an anti-Hispanic bigot and not a conservative as that term is understood by the political movement that elected Ronaldus Maximus.
As I have previously posted to you, I was a state chairman for Reagan when he challenged Feckless Ford in 1976. What were YOU doing for Reagan? As you may recall, the GOP-E from the Bushes to Planned Barrenhood loving Barry Goldwater (whose wife Peggy served on its national board with Dorothy Walker Bush until Peggy's death in 1975) were enthusiastic supporters of Ford and GHWB against Reagan in the hope that they could make the world safe for mega profits, a New World Order, abortion and every perversion known to man or beast.
PaleoPaulie and his love slaves were SHOCKED, SHOCKED to find out that 1) there was little room for them in Reagan's administrations, 2) that Reagan was NOT going to abolish the military, abandon Israel, or become a cheerleader for abortion and institutionalized perversion posing as "marriage."
If you had a clue about history, you would know that the Whig Party, like the Federalist Party before it died because of an almost exclusive obsession with greed to be satisfied from government policy and from government largesse. The GOP, in its death, will follow the Whigs and the Federalists down the highway of obsessive greed to the elephants' graveyard. "Fiscal conservatism" (whatever that may be if standing alone) is tolerable as a junior partner in a far grander coalition with military conservatism, interventionism, pro-life and pro-family advocacy, protection and advancement of Second Amendment rights, deregulation, and many other conservative issues. Standing alone, "fiscal conservatism" is a sure political loser, symbolized in literature by Ebenezer Scrooge before the ghosts showed up.
If you were actually in sympathy with Ronaldus Maximus, you would vomit at the mention of Ron (not Rand) Paul. Before you are tempted to tell me that Ron Paul supported Reagan, bear in mind that, as California governor, when asked about the fact that the John Birch Society had supported him for governor, Reagan replied to the effect: "That means that they supported me. It does not mean that I supported them." Ditto the autographed photos of Reagan with Ron Paul as a Congressional candidate. Those photo ops were available to any GOP Congressional candidate who wanted them.
Troll??? That's interesting. 25 posters on this thread oppose your position and your boy paleoPaulie. I am among the 25. NONE supported you or your boy. And that makes ME a troll here???? You are aware of JimRob's many colorful verbal rockets launched at what he called Ron Paul spam monkeys (among other equally accurate and unflattering things), are you not?
How Stupid Is The Stupid Party? Read the piece @ VDARE maybe it will wipe that smirk off your face. http://www.vdare.com/posts/how-stupid-is-the-stupid-party
Reagan was the last republican with any worth and he was a long way from perfect as he got duped quite a lot by his ex friends in the DRat party.
When will the Republican mainstream disabuse itself of the myth, or rather fantasy, that the indigent and illiterate inhabitants of our bordertown colonias and barrios are hotbeds of conservatism, who would vote for lower taxes and less government if only the GOP would be more liberal on immigration?
People like you who latch onto this dream ignore the fact that hispanics are disproportionate beneficiaries of government largesse. Single teenage mothers and unskilled, barely literate minimum wage workers who don't even pay taxes aren't very likely to embrace a program that threatens their food stamps, affirmative action benefits, "bilingual" (i.e. never learn English) special education programs, and various other goodies.
So when you consider certain demographic and economic realities, nobody is "alienating" Hispanics from conservatism. The fact that macho Mexicans hate homosexuals and their pregnant teenage girls won't have abortions or use birth control doesn't mean that they will vote for welfare cuts.
But by all means go on supporting "paths to citizenship" and the DREAM act along with all the liberal Democrats that you hate. You're just recruiting more people who will help elect the next decade's Obama.
Unfortunately, even Reagan was conned into boarding the open borders bandwagon. He also supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Incidentally, Paul, like all Libertarians, is equally unreliable on this issue.
It could hardly be worse than the America you open borders with Mexico enthusiasts will bring us. Many Mexican cities have a murder rates that are higher than those in Iraq and literacy rates that are lower.
Where will you be when Barrio Azteca and the Zetas run American cities like they run Sinaloa or Juarez?
Ron Paul is a stupid, Lib POS, and I have no hope for his supporters.
2. Mexicans here in Illinois are considerably better behaved than you apparently imagine. In Chicago, for example, home of you know whom, there were 508 homicides last year. Chicago is 1/3 the size of New York City and shrinking rapidly. New York City had 414 homicides last year. Chicago had close to a million more residents when Al Capone ruled the streets. Chicago has Mexicans. Many are poor. There are gangs. Few Mexicans either perpetrate or suffer homicides there. The slaughter is overwhelmingly black on black and often as a result of the fact that the shooters are incompetent and think that the sequence is Fire!, Ready!, Aim! Increasingly, the victims are children too young to be considered intentional targets.
3. Unlike Mexico, there are 300+ million guns in private hands here in the US. Mexico has gun control like Chicago.
4. And, YES, having the paleopipsqueak on his knees in the Oval Office signing the undefended US over to the Islamofascisti before being beheaded by them on live TV is a LOT worse than Mexican criminal gangs.
5. Personally, I think the US made a mistake in suppressing the Mafia. If Mexican gangs become a problem, the Mafia will rise again. Think of them as an indigenous militia group with some other business interests on the side.
Ronaldus Maximus was bringing Mexican farmworkers across the border to work harvests in the 1960s when he was governor of California. It was called the bracero program. His mentor in most things Republican, US Senator George Murphy urged him to do so. Therefore, Ronaldus Maximus (aka the oldest and the wisest or Der Alte) was not “conned” into anything. He did also support “amnesty” for “illegal” immigrants. What the GOP is missing today is his big spirit and sense of confidence in this country. It sometimes seems like only Reagan and Jack Kemp understood that being the Grinch that Stole Christmas is NOT good politics.
1. I should have noticed. You seem to be the one poster on this entire thread expressing any support for iopscusa's views. I would congratulate you but that is no cause for congratulations.
2. The Mexicans are here. They aren't going to go back to Mexico even if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want them to with all of your fingers crossed and dangling rabbits' feet. Get used to it. They are not going to vote (not even in the future when inevitably they will qualify) for candidates who vow to deport them. Nor are their relatives who are actually entitled to vote going to vote for the immigration averse Simon Legrees.
3. They do despise fudgepacker lifestyles and baby-killing. We need a lot more of that attitude in the USA.
4. You would also be surprised at how many Hispanics want their kids to be totally fluent in the English language in order to make the most of being in the USA. There was a debate at a community college in New Haven where I used to be a part time teacher. The debate was a face-off between the most conservative state senator Connecticut has seen in the last 50 years and a big shot from LULAC. The LULAC representative had his head (and his ass) handed to him by the Puerto Rican mothers in the audience who called him a poverty pimp trying to keep their kids controlled in the barrio. The state senator was the head of English First in Connecticut and mopped the floor with the remains of the LULAC representative after the Hispanic moms got finished with LULACboy.
5. I am not sure what the Republican "mainstream" may be nowadays but if it is the GOP-E that so easily nominates the likes of Gerald Feckless Ford, George Herbert Walker New World Order Bush, Bob Tax Collector for the Welfare State Dole, John McCain and Mittler as POTUS candidates by the application of obscene amounts of anonymous ruling class $$$$, I am not part of that mainstream. They also bought the nomination of Bush the Younger who thankfully kept his father's foreign policy sellouts far from his administration and named Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS. If the Republican "mainstream" is the one that nominated Marco Rubio over Limpwrist Crist, Ted Cruz over Chatsworth Worthington Dewhurst, Richard Mourdock (even if he lost the election it was worth it) over that treasonweasel Richard Lugar, ousted Robert Bennett in favor of Mike Lee, elected Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, etc., then I must be "mainstream."
6. Frankly, I find marriage, the babies' lives, military, interventionist foreign policy, guns, homeschooling and such issues infinitely more attractive and important than a relentless search for minigovernment, tax cuts for the fat cats, and the current and future status of Muffie's trust fund which tends to be the obsession of the GOP-E along with how much $$$$ can be farmed from the general public and siphoned off by the GOP-E. Nonetheless, so long as the social and military issues take precedence, the GOP-E can be on board provided they behave themselves and understand their subservient status in the conservative coalition. Their alternative is to try and cut a deal for tax cuts and minimizing government with the party of Obozo. Oh, wait....
7. If the bordermanics don't wise up, we will all face a future of nothing but Obozo-like tyrants. Plenty of Mexicans came here for jobs, to create businesses of their own, create a future for their kids, profit and prosper, are willing to pay their dues by way of military service, join police departments, send their kids to PRIVATE schools, avoid welfare state existence, etc. They are filling the gaping void in our society left by the willful murder of 55 million innocent babies to date by surgical abortions alone since Roe vs. Wade.
8. Do a better job of tracking SCOTUS decisions. Affirmative action is on its deathbed. See Ricci vs. DeStefano (Mayor of New Haven).
9. The Second Amendment was actually enforced as to the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms in cases out of DC and Chicago.
10. The chipping away at Roe vs. Wade continues at a glacial pace but is moving in the right direction.
11. Large new immigrant groups have always been disproportionate beneficiaries of welfare state programs. I am not so sure that this has been true of Mexicans, certainly none of the many with whom I am acquainted. The answer is to abolish the welfare state programs. The answer is not to deport Mexicans but to recruit them. Those macho Mexican men are not anxious to be rendered irrelevant by the welfare department replacing them with their wives and girlfriends.
12. Of course, recent progress in the courts will not continue if ANY conservative Justice is replaced by one more Elena Kagan or one more Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas may not leave soon voluntarily but either could die (which God forbid!). Chief Justice Roberts has epilepsy and I am not sure how that bodes for his longevity. Petit mal no big deal. Grand mal may be another story. Now, if, despite their social conservatism, their military and foreign policy conservatism, their Second Amendment conservatism, you and those who share your passions can just keep on threatening enough Mexicans, then we will have an America that is safe for baby-killing, fudge-packing posing as "marriage," Obozocare, gun grabbing, environmentalist everything, economic stagnation and implosion, a renewed round of the racial spoils system known as "affirmative action," and what not.
Like it or not, they are now fellow Americans to be wooed and won. Turn their vote and turn the future of this country for the better. Don't earn their confidence, don't turn their vote, don't welcome them into a conservatism that is their natural inclination and all of us will pay the price. Mexico was no model of democracy for them. They need to learn about us. Get a copy of the film For Greater Glory and appreciate what the Mexicans CAN be. I think you need to learn about them. We all do.
What DID Ronald Reagan do? What WOULD Jack Kemp have done? Neither would have been chumps on this issue, whatever you may imagine. Just as you are new to Free Republic, the Mexicans you are complaining about are new to our country.
What happened to VDARE? It used to be a vehicle for verrrrry marginalized schismatic Catholics waging war against JP II and waging war against war. Now it is run by Anglican refugees from Great Britain? Actually, Derbyshire may be an agnostic or atheist. In any event, we won our wars against Great Britain. It was in all the newspapers in 1783 and 1815. If they want to come here, they should conform to the USA rather than expect us to conform to the failed and defeated "mother country."
As the diplomats observe, we have a "special relationship" with Great Britain. How long it will last is anyone's guess. Just as Obozo is not Ronaldus Maximus, so too is David Cameron (charitably speaking) NOT Margaret Thatcher.
Nice is better than not nice and Derbyshire, Brimelow and O'Sullivan would do well to behave if they want to stay.
Reagan was the greatest POTUS of our lifetimes and, while not perfect, was a heckuva lot more perfect than anyone VDARE would likely support.
Hey troll, read the article before spouting off. Derbyshire was referring to an article by Daniel Greenfield aka “Sultan Knish” sultanknish.blogspot.com.”Who were the Geniuses Who Came up with That One?
Derbyshire provides these samples from Greenfield’s piece but of course many of us are already well aware of the truth about the dead Repubs:
Fortunately there is a clear path to victory. All we have to do is convince the Party of Consultants that all is lost and that they should come out as Democrats now. If they do that, then the Democratic Party will be a useless ruin within a decade. If they don’t do that, the Republican Party will have the same policies as the Democratic Party, except for the part where it wins elections.
The Republican Party has no ideas. Its only ideas involve deciding which liberal platform to “evolve” its way up to and how to sell that “evolution” to the base. And a lack of ideas comes from a lack of beliefs.
A party without ideas borrows them from its enemies. The big idea that the Republican establishment has is to be more like the Democrats. They just can’t decide which area they want to imitate them in the most. But the one thing they do know is that they need to get those annoying conservative ideas off the stage first.
What the GOP leadership fails to understand [is] that a party without a base is a big empty hall. You can get the checks that will allow you to rent the space, you can order up a band and ask them to play a song, but if no one shows up, then you don’t have a concert or a dance. All you have is an empty hall.
Sound like anyone you might know?
WATCH OUT Hornbeck! You have aroused the Jihadist Repub, Blackelk with your treasonous talk....he’ll be rhetorically bombing you with flaming calls of bigot, anti-semite and anti-catholic soon.
I take it you've never spent much time in our border areas. Places like Laredo, Brownsville, El Paso, Nogales, Chula Vista, etc. may as well be Mexico. No English spoken (either barrio Spanish or cholo "Spanglish" mixed with gang signs), extreme poverty, unwed teenage mothers, and thuggish youths are the norm. There's no economic development because none of them have any desire to better themselves, not with their "it's good enough" and "manana" attitudes.
And incidentally, before you accuse me of "racism" or "nativism" (why do so many "conservatives" love these liberal buzzwords?), I have no objection to bringing in skilled, intelligent immigrants who can contribute something constructive to society. Please take an effort and compare the average educational and economic achievement of immigrants from India or Korea (and their children) to immigrants from Mexico (and their children). It's not about race or skin color, it's about culture and economics.
You complain that the US is moving in the direction of Euro-style socialism. I don't agree with economic socialism, obviously (I'm probably more fiscally conservative than you are) but frankly, places like Finland are a lot more appealing than Mexico as models for what society should look like.
t's the notion of deporting 11-25 million "illegal" "aliens" that angers me. We are not KKK nation.
You love to accuse others of agreeing with "leftists" on foreign policy, but has it occurred to you that your views on illegal aliens are identical to those of the left (and to libertarians like Ron Paul)?
And, YES, having the paleopipsqueak on his knees in the Oval Office signing the undefended US over to the Islamofascisti before being beheaded by them on live TV is a LOT worse than Mexican criminal gangs.
The notion of Muslims taking over America and imposing sharia law is a paranoid delusion that only exists in the mind of people like you. In contrast, the Reconquista of America (or at least the southwest) by Mexicans is a reality. Mexicans are raised to believe that the SW US belongs to them, a view promoted by the La Raza council and other Hispanic agitator groups. And unlike your sharia law fantasy, this invasion and takeover is actually taking place. Much of the southwest, as I noted, may as well be Mexico, culturally, politically, and economically.
Nor are they going to vote for candidates who threaten to take away their food stamps, welfare checks, or affirmative action benefits. Not to mention all of the special schools with carefully crafted dumbed-down curricula in which they can "succeed."
3. They do despise fudgepacker lifestyles and baby-killing. We need a lot more of that attitude in the USA.
What two people do or don't do with their genitals doesn't affect me in the slightest. People turning our cities into tin roof shanty towns and gangland does. I have my priorities straight.
Moreover, if sexual morality is such a big issue for them, perhaps they should do something about their reproductive norms, which seem to be unwed teen pregnancy.
6. Frankly, I find marriage, the babies' lives, military, interventionist foreign policy, guns, homeschooling and such issues infinitely more attractive and important than a relentless search for minigovernment, tax cuts for the fat cats, and the current and future status of Muffie's trust fund which tends to be the obsession of the GOP-E along with how much $$$$ can be farmed from the general public and siphoned off by the GOP-E. Nonetheless, so long as the social and military issues take precedence, the GOP-E can be on board provided they behave themselves and understand their subservient status in the conservative coalition. Their alternative is to try and cut a deal for tax cuts and minimizing government with the party of Obozo. Oh, wait....
Yes, if the GOP had nominated a loon like Rick Santorum, whose only campaign issues were abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues that aren't even in the domain of the Federal Government's rights and responsibilities, the conservative movement would be so much better off.
As for sacred "military interventionism," somehow, I think there are better uses for our resources than protecting the borders of Kosovo and Bosnia or preventing two tribes on different hilltops in Afghanistan from slaughtering each other.
As for "Muffie's trust fund," the right of people to retain and dispose of with their property as they see fit is probably the most fundamental freedom worth defending. I do not, and most fiscal conservatives do not, defend taking taxpayer money and bailing out speculators who lost out in derivative markets any more than I approve of taking tax dollars to support barrio indigents. I see them as two sides of the same coin (and isn't if funny how establishment Republicans defended TARP when it was carried out by the Bush administration, only to turn on a dime and complain when it was expanded and taken to its illogical conclusion by Obama?)
7. If the bordermanics don't wise up, we will all face a future of nothing but Obozo-like tyrants. Plenty of Mexicans came here for jobs, to create businesses of their own, create a future for their kids, profit and prosper, are willing to pay their dues by way of military service, join police departments, send their kids to PRIVATE schools, avoid welfare state existence, etc. They are filling the gaping void in our society left by the willful murder of 55 million innocent babies to date by surgical abortions alone since Roe vs. Wade.
And if people like you don't wise up, we face an America that's politically, linguistically, culturally, and economically indistinguishable from Mexico in everything but name. If I wanted to live in a society like that, I would move there. I don't and I won't.
11. Large new immigrant groups have always been disproportionate beneficiaries of welfare state programs. I am not so sure that this has been true of Mexicans, certainly none of the many with whom I am acquainted. The answer is to abolish the welfare state programs. The answer is not to deport Mexicans but to recruit them. Those macho Mexican men are not anxious to be rendered irrelevant by the welfare department replacing them with their wives and girlfriends.
They're macho when it comes to their gangs and low riders, but not so manly when it comes to assuming the responsibilities of "baby daddy." When you see a teenage girl in the barrio with six kids, each likely has a different last name, and you can bet that "macho" daddy isn't supporting any of them.
What WOULD Jack Kemp have done? Neither would have been chumps on this issue, whatever you may imagine.
Jack Kemp wass a buffoon who supported affirmative action. Why should I use him as a measuring stick for who is or isn't a "chump"?
Just as you are new to Free Republic, the Mexicans you are complaining about are new to our country
One line of argument on messageboards that I always find laughable is the "I've been posting here longer, so I'm right." It's a juvenile ad hominem if there ever was one.
I repeat - my objection to the US being flooded with millions of Mexicans has nothing to do with them being "new" (nor with the color of their skin, before you play that card). The problem is cultural and economic.
Your posts amply demonstrate that you and I do not belong in the same political party. I am not an enthusiast for "economic conservatism" whatever that may be. I am willing to be in a coalition with "economic conservatives" so long as they understand their place (a very narrow one) in the conservative movement. Mindless materialism is NOT conservative.
I absolutely refuse to belong to any "conservative" movement that would tolerate abortion, fudgepackerism posing as "marriage," paleopeacecreepism or elevate bordermania to the level that you do.
If Ron Paul happens to be right on the immigration, that won't make me leap to the bordermania side. Ron Paul ... stopped clock ... twice a day every day! OTOH David Duke and the guys at Stormfront supported paleoPaulie. Go figure!
You might want to spend less time in our "border areas" if Mexicans are so scary to you. Maybe you would like to move to Finland. The climate in Finland leaves a lot to be desired but at least Finland is relatively homogeneous if more socialistic (a real test of your priorities) in its population which should make you more comfortable.
You forgot to mention the Atzlan fantasy. Of course, before Atzlan can become a reality (which it never will), the Atlan enthusiasts will have to overcome the Texas Rangers, the National Guard, the US military and private citizens with 300 million guns in private hands. As Admiral Yamamoto told Tojo, invasion of the US is impossible. There is a gun behind every blade of grass!
I have every confidence that the USA will survive all such challenges. Try developing some confidence and you just might like it.
History provides very few examples in the US where such views have prevailed. The Trail of Tears immediately comes to mind and the treatment of Indian tribes generally. The successful suppression of the Indian tribes is NOT a source of pride. The unsuccessful attempts to resist: the Yellow Peril, the immigration of Eastern European Jews, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and now Mexicans and Central Americans are sources of shame.
Margaret Sanger would have claimed hot to care what others did with their genitals but she cared verrrrry much to try and stifle the fertility of others and often used fictional examples of "Sadie" from Brooklyn (guess which group that would be?) as an example of a woman who needed to no longer reproduce. Margaret did not want many genitals to produce, well, babies. You are expressing an awful lot of concern over the genital activity of barrio teenagers and their resistance to either birth control or abortion. To better understand Margaret Sanger's shame, read her various books and those of her ideological buddies: Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, Ph.d. Stoddard's The Rising Tide of color is a particularly despicable sample of their views. Note, I am NOT accusing you of agreeing with them but it is their sloppy thinking that has led to 55+ million slaughtered to date. Planned Barrenhood's BGoard of Directors included for many decades Peggy (Mrs. Barry) Goldwater (1940-1975) and Dorothy Walker Bush (Mrs. Prescott Bush, mother of GHWB and granny of GWB). She served even longer than Peggy Goldwater.
If you are part of the 53% who still pay income taxes in the teeth of this depression, thank God for your good fortune in life rather than begrudging others.
"The Mexicans are coming!!! The Mexicans are coming!!! and not all of them are investment bankers protecting Mufficita's trust fund." What a sad fellow you must be! Life of the party, huh???
Mariano Rivera (greatest relief pitcher who ever lived, ever has lived, and ever will live) grew up in a tin roofed shanty in Latin America. He makes $15 million a year and has earned every penny. How much more than Mariano Rivera are you earning?
In 2012, we nominated for POTUS a very qualified businessman and utterly clueless excuse for a candidate. How did Mittler do with the Ebenezer Scrooge act?
The Declaration of Independence advocated for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee the rights to "life, liberty and property." Neither is a guarantee of Muffie's trust fund. Ask Chief Justice John Roberts who ruled that even a tax not denominated as a tax and denied to be a tax is still a tax and therefore constitutionally a power of Congress. I am not fond of that Obozocare ruling but, at least, unlike Roe vs. Wade, Chief Justice Roberts had some naked constitutional excuse for his ruling. He did not make it up out of whole cloth like Herod Blackmun and six of his shameless colleagues and 55 million innocents (and counting) will not be sliced, diced and hamburgerized by the ruling of Roberts.
As you will no doubt learn if you manage to avoid the dreaded ZOT!, ribbing newbies for being newbies is a good-natured form of fraternity hazing around here. Lighten up, Francis! The longer you post here and participate in the give and take, the better you will understand JimRob's community and the better you are able to gauge whether you want to be part of it. That is a remark about procedure. You will find numerous people here who agree with you and numerous people who disagree with you and some who agree in part and disagree in part.
You are not a special moral authority here nor am I. The disagreements here are often quite robust and sometimes messy. The longer you manage to stay, the better you will understand. This is always JimRob's living room and he makes the rules. We call that private property rights and we are mere guests here.
You're correct. The political right is not any more homogeneous in its beliefs and priorites than the left is homogeneous. You have both radical feminists and radical Muslims supporting Obama - go figure.
I absolutely refuse to belong to any "conservative" movement that would tolerate abortion, fudgepackerism posing as "marriage," paleopeacecreepism or elevate bordermania to the level that you do.
I similarly can't tolerate "conservatism" that embraces multiculturalism and transforms America into a third world country in the name of pandering for some (largely imaginary) votes in the barrio.
You might want to spend less time in our "border areas" if Mexicans are so scary to you. Maybe you would like to move to Finland. The climate in Finland leaves a lot to be desired but at least Finland is relatively homogeneous if more socialistic (a real test of your priorities) in its population which should make you more comfortable.
Actually, if current demographic trends continue, I may consider moving abroad. I prefer the company of educated and civilized people to thugs and low-life. Forgive me for that character flaw.
Incidentally, if "fudgepackers" are so scary to you, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia where they're stoned to death or beheaded 9or whatever it is that they do). Come to think of it, if fretting over other people's sex lives is so important a political issue, I don't understand your hatred of radical Islam. Their social views are very much like yours. If I were simply a "mindless materialist," then I might be an open borders enthusiast on the grounds that cheap illegal immigrant labor is good for business (ignoring the social costs that unassimilable illegal immigrants bring). I'd rather pay an extra 25 cents for a head of lettuce or a box of strawberries than have an America that looks more like a Guadalajara slum.
You forgot to mention the Atzlan fantasy. Of course, before Atzlan can become a reality (which it never will), the Atlan enthusiasts will have to overcome the Texas Rangers, the National Guard, the US military and private citizens with 300 million guns in private hands. As Admiral Yamamoto told Tojo, invasion of the US is impossible. There is a gun behind every blade of grass!
So where does that put your paranoid delusion of big bad Muslims taking over America and imposing sharia law? If Mexicans composing 15% of the population don't have the power take over, surely Muslims that make up 1% of the population are equally incapable. That means that the trillions we spend fighting them abroad has little or nothing to do with "defending" America.
Furthermore, you seem to have missed my point about the reoconquista. The southwestern US is turning into Mexico not because of their guns, but because of their feet (crossing the border) and their sky-high fertility. What Pancho Villa couldn't do with the gun, his heirs are accomplishing through "peaceful" means.
This is one line of argument about illegal immigrants that I just don't understand, i.e. "they're here, so we better learn to live with them, we can't deport them." That's the logical equivalent of: "Laws or no laws, theft happens, no sense in punishing the perpetrators."
On another thread, somebody was asking why small children who are brought over illegally by their parents should be "punished" by deportation if they didn't make the decision. Equivalently, you might say that you can't confiscate a thief's property because, after all, the loss of wealth hurts his children, who weren't responsible for the crime. And doesn't incarcerating the thief also harm his innocent children? Perhaps we shouldn't incarcerate people who happen to be parents while we're at it, since deporting them is beyond the pale.
Laws will never stop crime completely. That's not a reason not to have them or enforce them, including immigration laws.
You are expressing an awful lot of concern over the genital activity of barrio teenagers and their resistance to either birth control or abortion.
Because unlike non-reproductive sexual activity, this DOES have consequences on my well-being. Unwed teenage girls in the ghetto and barrio can't support them by themselves, so the rest of us have to pay for them. And when the kids grow up to be thugs and deadbeats, we pay for them in other ways.
You fret a lot about Americans not having enough children because of abortion and birth control (incidentally, abortion is comparatively rare among middle class Americans, who plan ahead to prevent pregnancy, it's really epidemic among the poor, especially blacks. So if you want to prevent abortions, you should be more supportive of pre-pregnancy birth control mesures), and seem to think that the only solution is to "replace" the "missing" Americans with Mexicans. I would say that it's the quality of children that's important, not the quantity. We are not suffering from underpopulation. What we do have is an increasingly high-tech, information based society, that runs the risk of being implemented by increasingly low-tech minds.
People in affluent societies have fewer children for obvious reasons - if your one or two kids will survive to adulthood almost surely, you don't need 10 more as an insurance policy. Nor do you need to produce a small army of farm hands in our type of economy. That allows parents to invest more resources in fewer, higher quality children than their counterparts in the third world or their forbears. I fail to see why you or anyone else sees this demographic shift as a problem (other than the temporary matter of social security, which is a political problem due to the fact that SS was run as Ponzi scheme rather than a Federal trust fund, not a demographic problem).
Moreover, the point I was make it is that I always found ironic how somebody so concerned with sexual morality seems to have no problem with a culture where pregnant unwed teenagers are the norm.
As you will no doubt learn if you manage to avoid the dreaded ZOT!, ribbing newbies for being newbies is a good-natured form of fraternity hazing around here. Lighten up, Francis! The longer you post here and participate in the give and take, the better you will understand JimRob's community and the better you are able to gauge whether you want to be part of it. That is a remark about procedure. You will find numerous people here who agree with you and numerous people who disagree with you and some who agree in part and disagree in part.
You are not a special moral authority here nor am I. The disagreements here are often quite robust and sometimes messy. The longer you manage to stay, the better you will understand. This is always JimRob's living room and he makes the rules. We call that private property rights and we are mere guests here.
I agree entirely, and appreciate your goodwill in spite of our disagreements.
If I were simply a "mindless materialist," then I might be an open borders enthusiast on the grounds that cheap illegal immigrant labor is good for business (ignoring the social costs that unassimilable illegal immigrants bring). I'd rather pay an extra 25 cents for a head of lettuce or a box of strawberries than have an America that looks more like a Guadalajara slum.
...belongs in the first paragraph of my response. Somehow, it wound up in a completely out of place paragraph downstream.
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.