You need to recheck your numbers. The Latin vote was pretty evenly split.
Not even close. Bush won the Hispanic vote only in one state, FL. He came close to breaking even in Texas. Everywhere else, he was crushed. http://www.vdare.com/pb/election.htm
You might also be interested in this article. http://www.vdare.com/awall/mexicans.htm
Given how many European immigrants stay on the east coast, and how solidly the east coast goes to the Dems I don't think they're helping us out much.
I don't have the figures for the 200 election but regarding Mayoral races, white immigrant neighborhoods went for Giulliani Bloomberg, while non-white immigrant neighboorhoods went Democrat 4 times in a row.
Of course, I would argue that regardless of race, all immigrants who are not refugees froim Communist countries are natural Democrats for the first few generations.
Of course the real punchline is that it's perfectly legal to be a leftist in this country. If we start basing immigrant policy on how we think they're gonna vote we'll get serious fuqed next time the Dems are in charge. And we won't be able to cry foul because we did it first.
No, the Democrats did it first in 1965. Kennedy sponsored the immigration act and Humphry lied about its results.
Again I have yet to see where the hispanics/ third worlders/ Mexican or whatever the hell you want to call them today are assimilating AT ALL differently than the European immigration boom from the late 19th and early 20th century. You keep insisting it, but you haven't proven it, and I ain't buying it.
For the moment, let me assume that you are correct that third-world immigration today is little different than that 100 years ago. Gues what, thos immigrants voted for Progressive Republicans and Democrats. They were the backbone of the northern FDR coalituion. It took 2 generations to assimilate them and have them vote like other Americans. So regardless of who is right about race, iun the near term, we are importing Democrat votes.
What's "holding a die"?
A die in is when protester pretend to have been killed. They also said that with the BBQ, we were symbolically roasting their ancestors. i told them that people are treif and that I am not an Aztec. They did not find the quip amusing and campus security was called.
And we don't get Columbus Day BBQ's because it's not a holiday because the black community talked us into trading it for MLK Day so we could get a Super Bowl.
You do understand the importance of national unification holidays like Columbus day ?
I don't see the Mexicans as either second class (hoo boy there's a racist statement if I've ever seen one) or racially disaffected.
I called Mexicans a disaffected class, like blacks. I never said second. I suppose no one has yelled at you, "(Yanqui/Gringo/Blanco/Anglo) this is no longer your country."
All I know is the facts. And the facts are a big group has thrown its support to Simon. What effect it's gonna have, who knows. But it does show that your blanket statement is incorrect.
Bush had support of some groups. He lost the Hispanic vote about 35-62%.
Hey, America has had a good influence on the world. Of course on the other hand we also gave the world Brittney Spears.
Her music sucks (although great remake of Joan Jett's "I love Rock and Roll!"), but she is damn easy on the eyes.
. And of course just because we went away doesn't mean our positive influence would end. Looking forward, what are the FUTURE contributions that would be lost if America went away? I do love this country, but I'm not stupid. The world goes on.
AS I said, if the US fails, I believe that the ideals of our founding will be discredited. The world will also have lost the only country to liberate and rebuild its enemies.
As free as us the last 50 years or just any old 50 years? The last 50 years nobody. Any old 50 years, The Roman Republic is good, the Athenian Republic kicked butt.
Athens had more slavery and Rome enslaved whole countries, even as a Republic.
Western Europe wasn't "lost". It was right there. It went through some changes, mostly for the worst, but they came out the other side in pretty good shape. And the Eastern Empire sucked.
1. It took 1000 years for Western Europe to be rebuilt. That sucks.
2. Byzantium was better than Visigoth Hispania.
Of course by the time it became the Roman Empire the experiment we're repeating was already over.
One of the reasons for the fall of the Republic was the expansion and introduction of foreign cultures.
Of course you forget why the Germans invaded also. They invaded because they hated Rome, they'd always hated Rome, and Rome wouldn't leave them the hell alone. Rome finally conquered them, and when Rome got weak they struck back. But again, by that point Rome was an Empire and not a Republic. The Republic was dead.
The Germans pretty much left Rome alone for 240 years after they destroyed the 17th 18th and 19th Legions in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest. In the 4th century, the Romans tried Romanizing the Germans. All they did was make the Goths want to take over Rome.
We have a policy towards Fox? All I've seen is that him and GW like to hang out. Other than letting Fox give his speeches I haven't seen a policy. I see no problem with treating him as a friend, you get to keep a better eye on friends.
When the PAN candidate Fox defeater the PRI oligarchs after 70 years, I rejoiced. However, I have seen little change.
Again, I ain't buying what your selling. You have YET to show that Mexican immigrants are behaving at all differently from any other group of immigrants in history. Since the previous groups weren't a problem there is no impricial evidence that the Mexicans will be a problem. Show how they're different and there's something to discuss. Until then it's just racist ranting against a people that have done nothing to deserve your ire.
1. Prior immigrants were a problem for generations.
2. Immigrants from a neighboring country are a big difference from those across the ocean. Mexico found this out at San Jacinto. Why should we ignore our shared history?