Free Republic

Yes, ABC News had a piece on that yesterday. It implied that anyone who opposed such a relocation (thousands of Iraqi refugees) is bad and uncaring. Our media is no better than Pravda was, all propaganda.

I agree, these people will never assimilate - let them be proud somewhere else. I just wish that our leaders had the courage to say it.

There are important differences between the immigration waves of today and yesterday.

1) It was the 1840s - no foreign language television and radio networks. Immigrants were forced to assimilate.

2) Those immigration periods did not last indefinitely. They were cut off, often for decades. This allowed ample time to assimilate. The current mass immigration wave is unlikely to end anytime soon - if ever. The 1986 amnesty that was supposed to stop it did not, the 1996 expedited deportation bill - never enforced - did not, the 700 mile turned 2 mile fence did not, and this bill will not stop it either. In another 25 years we could have triple or quadruple the number of illegal aliens that we have now, if we used the ‘86 bill as a means of extrapolation. Reminds me a bit of the third Punic war. The Romans demanded the Carthaginians do more and more to avoid war; they did almost every that was demanded until the Romans, eventually, abandoned pretenses and did what they wanted to do all along: destroy Carthage. We pass one bill, then another and another…

It’s ironic that you use the argument “that’s the same thing they said before.” Thousands of years ago, in the early fifth century, Catholic Church officials used many of the same arguments that the pro-amnesty lobby now use; one example would be “they only want to make a better life for themselves.” In smaller numbers, which was the case in the early empire, that could work. But as massive, unprecedented numbers of immigrants entered the empire the Romans realized, too late, that when very large groups of people enter a region there is less pressure for them to assimilate - so much so that they can speak their own language and get by just fine. In California, the census bureau reports that the number of people who speak Spanish at home has skyrocketed, and in some counties it will be the majority language within a few years. Couple that with massively exploding populations, increased collectivization and fewer pressures to learn English (Spanish television, radio, ethnocentric organizations like MECHA and La Raza, and corporations catering to the Spanish speaking crowd) and we could find our selves in the same position, a few decades from now, as the Romans were in the latter stages of their empire: balkanized with many languages and cultures instead of one.

The Romans mistakenly believed that their past experiences with assimilating groups would hold true indefinitely, they were wrong. They found out, the hard way, that there is a difference between “immigration” and “massive, unending immigration"; the latter is better called “colonization” than immigration.

Furthermore, Mexico once made a similar mistake to the one we are making now. They let large numbers of immigrants into Texas and the Southwest - eager to populate it. They made the immigrants promise to convert to Catholicism and to become loyal subjects of Mexico - they promised but did not follow through. Soon, American immigrants outnumbered Mexicans 10 to 1 and succeeded.

The argument that the immigrants will some how “destroy the Republic” or “Demographics are fate” are pure nativist rantings.

Can’t argue with history, see above. Or the Balkans. Arguing that the past always equals the future is incorrect, and so is pretending that everything will be just fine no matter what happens.

3) The scale of this immigration period is unprecedented, even by past standards.

4) The current group which makes up the vast majority of illegal aliens, Mexicans, has a historic grievance with the United States - the 1848 Mexican American war. Many believe that the South West was stolen from their homeland of Mexico. The immigrants of the past, mainly from Europe, had few important grievances with the United States; also, the countries from which they originated were very far away - hard to maintain allegiances with. On the other hand, Mexican politicians and others have done a great deal to make sure that illegal immigrants here maintain cultural ties with Mexico (president Fox often used the phrase “Mexicans living in America”), which is not so difficult considering that Mexico and the United States share a boarder in excess of a thousand mile long. Throw in millions of unassimilated people who identify with a bordering foreign nation, millions of aliens entering every few years, ethnocentric politicians like the LA mayor (former member of MECHA who once flew a Mexican flag an illegal immigration rally), white flight (gigantic numbers of whites and blacks left California in the 90s), and fewer and fewer reasons to assimilate and, one day, we might regret not preserving our sovereignty when we had the chance.

What's happening now is that politicians, eager to compete with a future populous China, and greedy corporations have sold America down the river for perceived short term gains - neglecting the long term.

The argument that the immigrants will some how “destroy the Republic” or “Demographics are fate” are pure nativist rantings.

There is utterly no evidence that Hispanic Immigrants will do any such thing. Anymore then the Germans, the Jews, the Irish, the Blacks, the Chinese, the Japanese et al did.

Tell that to the Indians.

1) Why do you hate Mexicans?

No one said anything about hating anyone - but, rather, I very much love America and want to preserve her unique culture, language, and identity - not sell it down to the river so some mega corporation like GE can make a few extra bucks. What you’ve done is smear me with a lie painted as a question…and the first thing I’m going to do when I’m president is to take a serious look at media ownership rules.

2) “I recently found out my family came from Holland without permission in the 1600s. Should we be sent back?"

I just recently found out that several innocent men have been freed from jail after having been falsely imprisoned; does that mean we should abolish the justice system?

In mathematics, there is a phrase that is often used in mathematical proofs: reductio ad absurdum, reduction to an absurdity. That assertion was a prime example of one. The fact is, under your logic, everyone would either have to go back from where they came (Asians to the Middle East and eventually Africa - American Indians to North America, then Asia, then the Middle East, and then, eventually, Africa - Africans back to specific parts of the continent…) or, everyone who wanted into the country should be allowed in. That’s insane. Billions would come. The citizens of this country have every right to determine who - if anyone - is allowed in; pointing to an outlier in order to justify an illogical argument is…well, insane. It’s clear to me that Time has a tremendous bias here and is attempting to impugn my integrity and my legitimacy, both as a political figure and as a human being - something that is hardly “journalistic," a phrase that I will never again use to describe your biased, politically motivated publication.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070605.asp#4

Vermont, one of the whitest - and most liberal - states in the union, wants to succeed? I wonder if this has anything to do with all those non-white illegal aliens pouring into our country - the ones that so many of them and their ilk wanted. Hypocrisy? Apparently not when you and fellow Babelists demand ultra tolerance, and ultra Balkanization, for others while failing to practice the same in your own communities.

Somebody should rightfully hit these lefties back with their own words: “racists and nativists.”

Dear Dick, ………morris

“So the only way the republican party can survive is for the GOP to help America commit suicide?” - Me

Incorrect. The Eastern Roman Empire limped along until it eventually fell in 1453 (Byzantine Empire)* , the traditional Roman Empire (the west) fell nearly 1000 years before - which had disastrous effects upon many in the former empire, Britain devolved to a lower state than before Rome’s arrival: “Like wheel-turned pottery, coinage, once common, had effectively disappeared from fifth - a sixth- century Britain.”*

*“…how the East managed to resist very similar external pressure. Here, I believe, it was primarily good fortune, rather than innately greater strength, that was decisive.” Brian Ward-Perkins “The fall of Rome and the end of civilization” Hardcover page 58.

*page 112

“America’s political, social and economic culture is far stronger than you are giving it credit for.”

Every system has a breaking point. Tens of millions of immigrants over just a few decades might just do it.

Sorry, but when you’re not even allowed to celebrate Columbus day without having “Indian Genocide” mentioned by protestors, among many many other things, it is not unreasonable to assume that something has gone wrong with the system.

“The left might be ascendant for a while, but they will overreach, they always do.”

That’s pie in the sky. You’re assuming people vote based on reason and logic, not emotion and group think - which is often the case. For example, blacks, on average, are more conservative than other Americans on issues such as gay marriage - but they vote democratic 9 to 1 (and always will). As the Hispanic population booms, republicans will need to garner a large portion of that vote in order to win federal offices nationally (the presidency in particular). In order to do that, they will have to embrace issues that will fundamentally alter the GOP - and even then it may not be enough.

“More to the point, You underestimate the effect of American culture on immigrants, both legal and illegal.

No, I think it is you who underestimate the affect of massive numbers of immigrants on American culture. You make the most common fallacy possible when it comes to understanding immigration: assuming that the past equals the future. There is a difference between the immigration eras of the early 1900s and the new immigration era of today. The former era consisted of large numbers of Europeans - 1) people who could easily blend in 2) were forced to assimilate in order to survive. The latter is composed of immigrants who are 1) ethnically very different, which on a subconscious level affects how others perceive them “Race matters to 3-month-olds, studies find” http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm 2) have entire Spanish language television networks, newspapers, radio programs, and communities where they can be free not to assimilate.

You and others are seeing what you want to believe, not the truth.

“Duped and Clueless: How Easily We Fool Ourselves” http://www.livescience.com/health/051006_choice_blindness.html

“People see what they believe, not vice versa,” http://www.livescience.com/health/070228_moral_outrage.html

“Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds” http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_political_decisions.html

“Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.” “The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say. Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained. The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.”

They’ve won a majority in a presidential election four times in 60 years (1948, 1960, 1964, 2000). That is not the record of an unstoppable juggernaut

Again, falsely asserting that the past equals the future. America was a different country then. Tell me, how many times has the republican candidate for the presidency carried the state of California, a state that now has no majority ethnicity and a very large Latino population, since 1988? If you’re having a hard time answering, I’ll just give you the answer in short: ZERO times. Outside of nominating an aging celebrity from a terminator movie to serve as a token republican in a state dominated on every level by democrats, republicans have no chance there…which will be the case nationally at some point. What you’ve asserted is specious and plainly absurd. You can believe in “Pie in the Sky” fantasies if you want, but they aren’t even close to being true.

Ironically, there were instances of Romans acting on such mentalities; in 475 A.D. the Roman government naively surrendered the town of Clermont to the barbarians with the understanding that they would, in exchange, relinquish the important towns of Arles and Marseille. They miscalculated and lost Clermont, Arles, and Marseille forever. They simply couldn’t fathom the notion of the future being any different from the past, in other words “losing.”

Bush:

1) Only got into Yale because of daddy, the influential senator.

2) Got into the Texas air national guard because of daddy.

3) Not to mention that sweet baseball deal,….elitism? After all, when was the last time one of us normal people received something like that?

4) Mike Brown: roommate of one of Bush’s pals = appointed to run FEMA.

5) Harriet Miers: Bush buddy and former head of a lottery commission in Texas (breaking those glass ceilings, huh?) = nominated to the SCOTUS.

6) Claims to be from Texas, but was born in Connecticut, and his family resides in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Sniff, sniff < /elitism>

Yes, but I think it would be better spent on a new show, rather than one that had potential and squandered it through the likes of paramount and Rick Berman.

Enterprise is an inferior quality show, period. Both the current Battlestar Gallactica and the old Babylon 5 were far superior. This waste of t.v. space should have been amputated from television long ago.

It's not just texts anymore. Everyone from the History channel to the Discovery channel is doing it.

Humph! Let me tell you something you uneducated little nut, you're not half as smart as you think. When It comes to buildings, you don't know a third as much as I do, guaranteed.

It would have been expensive, and ultimately worthless.

Shows how little you know. People like you said the same thing about cockpit door reinforcements, too expensive. But had they been there, 9-11 would never had happened.

Spraying on the insulation was a mistake, period-despite what your incredible highschool level diploma says.

There have been many examples of flaws in New York buildings that were realized and fixed before it was too late. For example, the citigroup building was nearly destroyed by a hurricane in the 90s (luckly the hurricane diverted outward further into the Atlantic ocean) because the building's I beams were bolted together instead of welded. An engineering student accidentally uncovered this and informed the architect. He realized that if a strong wind were to hit the building at one of its corners, the the bolts would fail, sheer, and send the building tumbling down (not cascading downward) onto the streets. They were so panicked that they worked at nights, placing welded plates over the joints, so as not to set off a panic.

Had the citigroup building fell, I'm sure that you would have argued incorrectly that a retro-fit was too expensive.

No you weren't.

Uh, yeah I was.

I stopped reading you attempt at attention at this point. I figure that you're probably some little 14 year old Internet turd who desperately needs somebody to talk to besides mommy. Bye-and try to accept reality sometime in the future, huh.

The insulation of the building was sprayed on. When the planes hit, the insulation was blown away. They could have placed and secured it instead-thereby, reducing the heat. They might still be standing if they had. That humourous enough?

Um. Hellloooo? We are talking about shooting down planes, not people.

I was trying to demonstrate that any high caliber weapon is not a toy-something to be relegated to speculation and "impossibilities."

ignorant and petulant

Working on those SAT vocabulary builders huh?

The towers were not designed to withstand intense fire.

They could have been, that's the point. Furthermore, the building could have been retrofitted to better withstand a large fire-they just never thought of it. The same way people never think about people with large weapons firing at commercial planes at airports.

If a single law abiding American citizen on each of the four hijacked planes had had his Second Ammendment enumerated right to keep and bear arms respected, and had been thussly armed, the terrorists and their one inch box cutters wouldn't have stood a chance,

First of all, that is totally irrelevant to the argument. Secondly, I think you confuse my position on guns with airport security. Thirdly, what if the terrorists had used the same right-after becoming citizens-to bring even larger weapons on board? Some old lady with a pea shooter won't stop 5 well armed terrorists.

. But, thanks to the unconstitutional anti-gun efforts of ignorant cowardly chicken littles like yourself,

I'll refer you back to the part were I tell you not to "confuse by position (which I haven't said) on guns with my position on airport security. If you want to continue debating a great person like myself (trying to humor you), stay on point.

And yet, even with six guns blazing, this aircraft often failed to bring down German bombers even after giving them their full load of ammunition.

They were bombers, not commercial aircraft.

things don not seem impossible. You know they are impossible.

"Men will never fly faster than sound," "the atom will never yield useful energy." People used to know a lot of stuff was impossible, humph.

More to the point, in a free society that is not ruled by cowardice

What would you know about cowardice or bravery? Probably nothing. Talk is cheap, serve in a war-or some parts of america-if you know so much about it.

Helloooo. We are not talking about shooting at a "plane".

Really! Could have fooled me.

Duck hunters use shotguns because the spreading pattern of the shot means they have that much more of a chance that one of the pellets will hit the fast target of the duck flying against the difficult to track background of the sky.

The plane is larger than the duck, therefore easier to hit, nuff said.

I know the size of the target. I know the speed of the target. I know the approach angle of the target. I know the history of the weapon and it use against similar slower and weaker targets.

Your name isn't Muhammad, is it?

And as to the "one or more shots", you really don't know what you are talking about.

One or more shots, means one or more people-think.

but limit yourself to hyperbole and cowardly speculation.

Look son, I really don't think you know the definition of cowardly-you spineless litte turd.

<>Also, I'm older than you. Guaranteed.

You should put that guarantee of yours on a box. It's sooooo believable that I'm sure it will sell well.

Once again, the airplane is NOT the target.

Okay your majesty-whatever you say.

Who said anything about "mach speed"?

Usually when people say things like that, they are trying to make a point. "It's raining cats and dogs" means that it is raining hard, etc.

You're one of those militia guys/gals right? Mirror glasses, dark shirt, cameo pants and cap, A.K. 47. Nice to meet a non-cowardly person like yourself.

Do the math. Say 400 people die if a Boeing 747 crashes. But you only have a 1x10-100% chance

You're assuming I agree with your math, which I don't. Besides just shooting down a plane, part of a terrorist's job is to "terrorize." Shooting at a plane with a powerful weapon would accomplish that(that's part of what CNN was saying)- and don't say they would be caught. Have they arrested the anthrax mailer yet?

I know a lot more about shooting and the .50 BMG than you do. Guaranteed. And most of those guys know a heck of a lot more about the .50 BMG than I do. Many of them shoot the .50 BMG every single day (lucky rich buggers). They know what it can and can't destroy. Ask them about the chances of a terrorist, or even a world class marksman, somehow managing to bring down an commercial airliner with even a Barrett 82A1. They'll tell you exactly what I have told you, and probably more.

Alright then, if it will make you happy, I will totally do that. And if it will make you even more happy, I will completely agree with you that shooting down a plane with a .50 BMG is tremendously difficult.

Another point to the story is that it could be used in an attempted assassination of the president-or other people. You're getting caught up in one aspect of the story. I don't see how reporting on the dangers of that is anti-gun.

Then stand in front of one while I try to hit you with it. Then tell me if it is big enough.

A lot of "people" might not have thought that, but a lot of engineers and architects knew otherwise.

So many that they all rushed to fix the problem...hmmm.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You still have to hit a distant small critical target that's moving very fast and which you can't see through the skin of the aircraft.

How do you know that? How many times has a U.S. commercial aircraft been hit by one?

Do you mean Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, then again not the same thing at all. Kennedy's staff car was not nearly as fast, or as far away as a commercial airline.

But yet, for years many people thought that it was impossible for Oswald to have pulled it off. That's why they made up the grassy knoll people. The point is, even though something may seem impossible, you don't really know if it is until someone tries it-often ending in tragedy.

He did manage to shoot Kennedy, but he did not in any way cause the car to crash.

1)he wasn't aiming for the car.

2)Even if the car had crashed, it would have it no way compared to the damage that a crashing plane will cause.

If it were so easy to hit a moving aerial target with a rifle, then why do duck and goose hunters all use shotguns?

Because a duck is less than 100th the mass and size of a commercial aircraft. A plane is just a tiny bit more of a target. You must not fly much.

I, however, actually have some knowledge and experience as to what would happen (which you have only been able to counter with hyperbole and fear).

Don't give me that crap. You just admitted that you have never fired on an aircraft; therefore, it is impossible for you to be dishing this nonsense about it being impossible to hit a plane with a .50 BMG when you have absolutely zero clue as to what would actually happen if a plane were hit by one or more rounds from it. All you can respond with is 1984 style brainwashing and Internet talking points.

I have fired an M2 at a moving ground target (that was a fun day). It's a lot harder to do than you realize. The fully automatic (not to mention fully regulated, licensed, and taxed) M2 did trash the truck, but only after about half a belt was fed into it.

Look son, let me educate you a little bit on the differences between a car and a large passenger aircraft. First, if a car is taken out, then only a few people are hurt or killed. If an aircraft is taken out, it crashes violently-probalby killing everyone (100s probably). Secondly, a Boeing 747, 767, ect., is a much larger target than a car. Thirdly, it is more vulnerable upon takeoff and landing than you think, it's not like it's exactly moving a Mach speed. And considering that a 767, etc., isn't built like a flying fortress, then it's not likely to be able to take a tremendous amount of fire. Lastly, even if only 10% of the people on a 747 are hurt or killed, then that's several times the damage that a typical car crash causes.

the plain fact that actually bringing down a plane with one of these rifles is so difficult that it's beyond impossible.

like talking to a rock.

And you, chronotrigger, fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.

Not really, I consider myself to a pretty rational and open-minded person. Afterall, I have listened to your arguments, haven't I.

I'm no fan of CNN, but even I realize that another point to this story was that airport security is extremely lacking. If not a .50 BMG, then maybe something else.

their intent is to have these weapons banned as an increment to the fascist liberal dream of total citizen disarmament

CNN didn't do such an evil thing by broadcasting this piece-if it were really anti-gun, then it sucked at it's message. If they really wanted to wage a "ban gun" campaign, then they could have done a lot more than this little story.