It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: Pandora on December 04, 2012, 03:18:44 PM
-
Yep. It's current.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/george-w-bush-pushes-for-more-immigration/ (http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/george-w-bush-pushes-for-more-immigration/)
Read it for yourselves. I'm too disgusted to pick out pieces.
-
He remains quiet the whole time he and his administration are accused of everything under the sun, claiming it's improper for a previous president to meddle, yet when he does decide to opine on something it's this. Big surprise right? I guess he wants to help his mestizo nephew's bid for "some statewide office".
-
Big government progressive.
-
He remains quiet the whole time he and his administration are accused of everything under the sun, claiming it's improper for a previous president to meddle, yet when he does decide to opine on something it's this. Big surprise right? I guess he wants to help his mestizo nephew's bid for "some statewide office".
Lesse if I can get it right this time...
"Keep out da Bushes!"
Any other bush's with political aspirations should tell uncle, daddy, brother (whatever) to STHU (actually I don't care if they do or not cuz I'll never vote for another Bush as long as I live).
-
Yep. It's current.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/george-w-bush-pushes-for-more-immigration/ (http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/george-w-bush-pushes-for-more-immigration/)
Read it for yourselves. I'm too disgusted to pick out pieces.
Maybe Bush is smarter than everyone here thinks.
First of all, we have to have immigration to fill crucial positions in the private sector, because our stupid braindead kids don't major in the right things in college. So immigration is a MUST - PERIOD.
Second of all, like it or not, Hispanics hate the GOP position on immigration, and we need their votes. The GOP should be the natural home of Hispanics since most of them are Catholic and against gay marriage and against abortion. They should be voting for us. So we need to re-tool our message on immigration.
Lastly, Bush finally managed to find a way to come out of the shadows in a manner that the Left and the media can't criticize him on, and on a subject that must be addressed by the GOP. It is also a subject that he tried to lead on as president, and which nobody has led on since.
Remember, the Hispanic vote is one reason Bush was elected. In 2004 Bush got about 35% of the Hispanic vote. If Romney had done that he'd be president right now.
I think maybe Bush is back!! I sure hope so.
-
Yeah. We need more immigrants from Mexico if we want this country to become indistinguishable from Mexico. Which is exactly how many parts of this country already are.
-
Yeah. We need more immigrants from Mexico if we want this country to become indistinguishable from Mexico. Which is exactly how many parts of this country already are.
I would rather live next door to Ricardo Montalbon, who is from Mexico, than Obama, who is from Chicago.
And at least Mexicans work. People born here suck on food stamps.
-
... since most of them are Catholic ....
True.
... and against gay marriage and against abortion ...
Yeah, uh, no; not so much anymore. They're evolving ....
First of all, we have to have immigration to fill crucial positions in the private sector, because our stupid braindead kids don't major in the right things in college. So immigration is a MUST - PERIOD.
Yeah, because Mexicans illiterate in their own language are going to be such a boon over our stupid braindead kids.
We can't afford any more Mexicans, period, and please don't push the "we need their votes" bullspit at me because I ain't buying, and we don't need "higher skilled" immigrants either. What we need is employers willing to pay the older, experienced folks what their skills are worth, you know, the ones they lay off because they're too expensive.
-
... since most of them are Catholic ....
True.
... and against gay marriage and against abortion ...
Yeah, uh, no; not so much anymore. They're evolving ....
First of all, we have to have immigration to fill crucial positions in the private sector, because our stupid braindead kids don't major in the right things in college. So immigration is a MUST - PERIOD.
Yeah, because Mexicans illiterate in their own language are going to be such a boon over our stupid braindead kids.
We can't afford any more Mexicans, period, and please don't push the "we need their votes" bullspit at me because I ain't buying, and we don't need "higher skilled" immigrants either. What we need is employers willing to pay the older, experienced folks what their skills are worth, you know, the ones they lay off because they're too expensive.
Did Bush say he wanted illiterates to immigrate?
-
Bush doesn't give a flyin' fck if they're illiterate or not as long as they're "hispanic". Don't you get that?!
-
Fox just said 67 percent of Mexicans vote Democrat, so all we need to do is educate 17 percent and it's 50/50. We've just got some pzz poor story tellers and salesmen; of course when you have Boehner and McConnell as frontmen there's not a lot to work with.
The article cherrypick quoted Bush.
BUT - He should just go back to the ranch and STFU.
And Glock is right it's getting another Bush in office,
you know, because they are sooo civic minded.
As far as immigration goes, we have immigration laws and they should be enforced. If we want more entry level workers make the law reflect it. Most Mexicans are good hard working folks if they go through the process to become Americans cool.
Our worst immigration problem is the OPEN VISA PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE EASTERNERS; that should be the first focus on revising our immigration policy.
-
No. We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics". They're the largest "minority" group in the country -- is it 30% by now -- how many more do you want until we're the minority in our own country?
Damn.
-
Bush doesn't give a flyin' fck if they're illiterate or not as long as they're "hispanic". Don't you get that?!
I get that there are a lot of Mexicans who are better people and harder workers than a lot of the lowlife ghetto slugs born here.
-
Bush doesn't give a flyin' fck if they're illiterate or not as long as they're "hispanic". Don't you get that?!
I get that there are a lot of Mexicans who are better people and harder workers than a lot of the lowlife ghetto slugs born here.
What you don't seem to get is there are a lot of born and bred Americans who are not lowlife ghetto slugs.
So far, what we're getting from Mexico is majority illegals, themselves lowlife ghetto slugs, who are simply promoting their "culture" of exploiting free access to other people's stuff.
You want to live with the good Mexicans, go there to Mexico; they actually have a country of their own and a lot of work to do there to make it a better place to live.
-
We need legal immigrants.
We need to stop the Open Visa Program for middle easterners, they are our greatest national security threat.
-
Second of all, like it or not, Hispanics hate the GOP position on immigration, and we need their votes. The GOP should be the natural home of Hispanics since most of them are Catholic and against gay marriage and against abortion. They should be voting for us. So we need to re-tool our message on immigration.
Hispanics hate the fact that we respect them enough not to let cheaters rob them of their opportunity? I seriously doubt that. Or perhaps you've bought into the lefts interpretation of the Republican position on legal immigration?
-
We need legal immigrants.
We need to stop the Open Visa Program for middle easterners, they are our greatest national security threat.
No, we don't "need" immigrants.
-
Second of all, like it or not, Hispanics hate the GOP position on immigration, and we need their votes. The GOP should be the natural home of Hispanics since most of them are Catholic and against gay marriage and against abortion. They should be voting for us. So we need to re-tool our message on immigration.
Hispanics hate the fact that we respect them enough not to let cheaters rob them of their opportunity? I seriously doubt that. Or perhaps you've bought into the lefts interpretation of the Republican position on legal immigration?
Sounds to me like he has. Charles as well.
-
I'm so sick of hearing about the 'hispanic vote' the 'black vote' the 'woman vote', etc... it would be best for the GOP to have principles and then STICK TO THEM no matter who or what group is attracted by them. To change their platform on ANY point, (which in my opinion, is what they will eventually do) to a more moderate position (so that they are closer to the dems and truly are different parties but same animal) will do nothing but alienate a large portion of their base... such as the traditionalists, the Constitutionalists, etc... I am really sick and tired of people changing their stance on things just in order to get people to 'like them'.
-
Bush doesn't give a flyin' fck if they're illiterate or not as long as they're "hispanic". Don't you get that?!
I get that there are a lot of Mexicans who are better people and harder workers than a lot of the lowlife ghetto slugs born here.
What you don't seem to get is there are a lot of born and bred Americans who are not lowlife ghetto slugs.
I get that too. I am one of them.
So far, what we're getting from Mexico is majority illegals, themselves lowlife ghetto slugs, who are simply promoting their "culture" of exploiting free access to other people's stuff.
And I am not suggesting to let them in, and I am sure that Bush wasn't either.
You know, I am Irish. People said the same things about the Irish when they came here. I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have. Like I said in another post, I'd rather live next door to Ricardo Montalban than to Rachael Maddow
We need legal immigrants.
We need to stop the Open Visa Program for middle easterners, they are our greatest national security threat.
Now that post makes sense.
-
Yeah. We need more immigrants from Mexico if we want this country to become indistinguishable from Mexico. Which is exactly how many parts of this country already are.
I would rather live next door to Ricardo Montalbon, who is from Mexico, than Obama, who is from Chicago.
And at least Mexicans work. People born here suck on food stamps.
Yeah keep hitting that crack pipe. Here is what that unfettered colonization from Mexico is getting you:
(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Mexican_Day_Laborers.gif)
But I guess as long as they're Catholics all is well.
-
^ There are bad apples in every bunch.
But on the whole, I'd say that Mexicans are harder workers than certain ethnic groups born in America
-
I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have.
That's out of line.
-
Maybe Bush is smarter than everyone here thinks.
All evidence is to the contrary. GWB was not and is not a conservative. He made mistakes. A lot of them.
Now granted, he was better than the alternative in 2000 and in 2004 but he damaged the R brand. Perhaps beyond hope of recovery.
First of all, we have to have immigration to fill crucial positions in the private sector, because our stupid braindead kids don't major in the right things in college. So immigration is a MUST - PERIOD.
Agreed, but this will never happen with south of the border immigrants. And I do mean almost all south of the border immigrants. The fact of the matter is that the type of immigration that GWB is in favor of is the poverty stricken hispanic flavor and no, I have no idea why. But it is undeniable.
We need to be highly selective in who is allowed in. But we aren't for reasons that I will describe below.
Second of all, like it or not, Hispanics hate the GOP position on immigration, and we need their votes. The GOP should be the natural home of Hispanics since most of them are Catholic and against gay marriage and against abortion. They should be voting for us. So we need to re-tool our message on immigration.
But they won't vote for us regardless of the GOP position on immigration, gay marriage or abortion. Why? See below.
Lastly, Bush finally managed to find a way to come out of the shadows in a manner that the Left and the media can't criticize him on, and on a subject that must be addressed by the GOP. It is also a subject that he tried to lead on as president, and which nobody has led on since.
His leadership in this area was a failure because it runs counter to what a majority of Americans want.
The media can and will criticize him on anything including immigration so I'm not sure what the point is in that statement. If it's a Republican under discussion then the coverage will be either non-existant or negative. Sorry but that's just the way it is with the media today. Ditto with the left. Embrace it.
Remember, the Hispanic vote is one reason Bush was elected. In 2004 Bush got about 35% of the Hispanic vote. If Romney had done that he'd be president right now.
I think maybe Bush is back!! I sure hope so.
No, you are completely wrong here. The fact is that (using your numbers) in 2004 Kerry almost won with 65% of the hispanic vote. No one wins elections with a minority share of a big demographic. GWB eked out a victory (and it was very close, remember?) despite only getting 35% of hispanics.
The fact is that there hasn't been a Republican in modern times (perhaps anytime) that has gotten more than a third of the hispanic vote. Why is that? Because Republicans do not stand for the things that hispanics want. And no, it isn't an open border policy. Hispanics want a big government welfare state. It's what they are used to in their countries of origin and when they come here, legal or otherwise, they want more of the same. They leave their countries of origin because the governments are oppressive and they live in a very poor welfare state. When they come here they are merely trading up in terms of standard of living.
Increasing the supply of "takers" is not a winning strategy. It is a certain loser. For Republicans. Democrats love it and that's why they favor poverty stricken hispanics: It broadens their base.
This is the truth and these are facts. Sorry if they disagree with your view.
-
I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have.
That's out of line.
It is, but let him go. What he fails to grasp is that the Mexicans have a fervor for their own -- brown, if you will -- and will choose that over White, cafeteria Catholicism notwithstanding. There's no goldamn good reason for us "white" not to do the same, if only for defensive purposes.
What also he fails to grasp is that in minority numbers, other "ethnics" (once upon a time, we called them nationalities) are often safer here with us "white" than they are in their own countries among their own. Take Chinese female babies for example; we gladly bring home to love and protect what they throw away. And in a minority number, that's fine, but people the world over do what they do, which is assert their intent to rule over whomever they can dominate once their numbers reach critical mass. It is only the "white" fools in the United States who have willingly stepped aside and left an uncertain existence for "their posterity" that the Founders fought to establish as their birthright.
-
Bush has had a hardon for amnesty ever since we came to know him. No surprises there.
CC makes the GOP talking-point that the "natural home" for Hispanics is the GOP, because they're Catholic, pro-life, and anti-homosexual marriage. Last time I looked, "Catholic" was not an indicator of conservatism or Republican party affiliation. Catholicism as it is practiced by most Americans is pro-life liberalism, and that's how the majority of Catholics vote. And for the majority of Catholics, "pro-life" is less important that voting for Democrats. That's just the cold hard truth CC.
Illegal Hispanics are Catholic, and the Catholic church is officially pro-life, but where is the evidence that Illegal Hispanics are any more "Republican" than the legal Anglo-American Catholics upon which the comparison fails? If Catholicism has demonstrated ANYTHING in the political arena it is that its position on the sanctity of life and marriage starts with the clergy and ends at the ballot box. American Catholics will tell you that they're pro-life all day long, but when it comes time to vote, who do they vote for? Leftists.
These Mexican illegals come from a failed socialist system. Sure, many work hard. That's because they are rewarded for their work more than they ever dared dream under the oppression of failed socialism. But it would be foolish to conclude that this indicates that they will vote for fiscal conservative policies.
They have no intellectual anchor to American economic conservative principles. They work hard because it pays well. But they quickly find that the government pays well too. Because they have no principled anchor, they are susceptible to the snare of promises of largesse and race demagogeury.
Illegal Hispanics are ripe for the Leftist plucking. That is exactly why the Leftists and the New World Order captains want them here. Once they're normalized, Leftist one-party rule is established.
-
"White Power", yeah, that's America.
-
Last time I looked, "Catholic" was not an indicator of conservatism or Republican party affiliation.
True dat, what with 54% voting for Øbongo
-
"White Power", yeah, that's America.
Not sure what you point is, so I'll just respond this way...
Things invented by white guys:
20th century:
# 1900: Rigid dirigible airship: Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin
# 1901: Improved wireless transmitter: Reginald Fessenden
# 1901: Mercury vapor lamp: Peter C. Hewitt
# 1901: paperclip: Johan Vaaler
# 1902: Radio magnetic detector: Guglielmo Marconi
# 1902: Radio telephone: Poulsen Reginald Fessenden
# 1902: Rayon cellulose ester: Arthur D. Little
# 1903: Electrocardiograph (EKG): Willem Einthoven
# 1903: Powered Monoplane: Richard Pearse
# 1903: Powered Airplane: Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright
# 1903: Bottle machine: Michael Owens
# 1904: Thermionic valve: John Ambrose Fleming
# 1904: Separable Attachment Plug: Harvey Hubbell
# 1905: Radio tube diode: John Ambrose Fleming
# 1906: Triode amplifier: Lee DeForest
# 1907: Radio amplifier: Lee DeForest
# 1907: Radio tube triode: Lee DeForest
# 1907: Vacuum cleaner, (electric): James Spangler
# 1909: Monoplane: Henry W. Walden
# 1909: Bakelite: Leo Baekeland
# 1909: Gun silencer: Hiram Percy Maxim
# 1910: Thermojet engine: Henri Coand?
# 1911: Gyrocompass: Elmer A. Sperry
# 1911: Automobile self starter (perfected): Charles F. Kettering
# 1911: Air conditioner: Willis Haviland Carrier
# 1911: Cellophane: Jacques Brandenburger
# 1911: Hydroplane: Glenn Curtiss
# 1912: photography ;Lapse-time camera for use with plants:Arthur C. Pillsbury
# 1912: Regenerative radio circuit: Edwin H. Armstrong
# 1913: Crossword puzzle: Arthur Wynne
# 1913: Improved X-Ray: William D. Coolidge
# 1913: Double acting wrench: Robert Owen
# 1913: Cracking process for Gasoline: William M. Burten
# 1913: Gyroscope stabilizer: Elmer A. Sperry
# 1913: Geiger counter: Hans Geiger
# 1913: Radio receiver, cascade tuning: Ernst Alexanderson
# 1913: Radio receiver, heterodyne: Reginald Fessenden
# 1913: Stainless steel: Harry Brearley
# 1914: Radio transmitter triode mod.: Ernst Alexanderson
# 1914: Liquid fuel rocket: Robert Goddard
# 1914: Tank, military: Ernest Dunlop Swinton
# 1915: Tungsten Filament: Irving Langmuir
# 1915: Searchlight arc: Elmer A. Sperry
# 1915: Radio tube oscillator: Lee DeForest
# 1916: Browning Gun: John Browning
# 1916: Thompson submachine gun: John T. Thompson
# 1916: Incandescent gas lamp: Irving Langmuir
# 1917: Sonar echolocation: Paul Langevin
# 1918: Super heterodyne: Edwin H. Armstrong
# 1918: Interrupter gear: Anton Fokker
# 1918: Radio crystal oscillator: A.M. Nicolson
# 1918: Pop-up toaster: Charles Strite
# 1919: the Theremin: Leon Theremin
# 1922: Radar: Robert Watson-Watt, A. H. Taylor, L. C. Young, Gregory Breit, Merle Antony Tuve
# 1922: Technicolor: Herbert T. Kalmus
# 1922: Water skiing: Ralph Samuelson
# 1922: Photography : First mass production photo machine:Arthur C. Pillsbury
# 1923: Arc tube: Ernst Alexanderson
# 1923: Sound film: Lee DeForest
# 1923: Television Electronic: Philo Farnsworth
# 1923: Wind tunnel: Max Munk
# 1923: Autogyro: Juan de la Cierva
# 1923: Xenon flash lamp: Harold Edgerton
# 1925: ultra-centrifuge: Theodor Svedberg - used to determine molecular weights
# 1925: Television Iconoscope: Vladimir Zworykin
# 1925: Television Nipkow System: C. Francis Jenkins
# 1925: Telephoto: C. Francis Jenkins
# 1926: Television Mechanical Scanner: John Logie Baird
# 1926: Aerosol spray: Rotheim
# 1927: Mechanical cotton picker: John Rust
# 1927: Photography:First microscopic motion picture camera: Arthur C. Pillsbury
# 1928: sliced bread: Otto Frederick Rohwedder
# 1928: Electric dry shaver: Jacob Schick
# 1928: Antibiotics: Alexander Fleming
# 1929: Electroencephelograph (EEG): Hans Berger
# 1929: Photography:First X-Ray motion picture camera:Arthur C. Pillsbury
# 1920s: Mechanical potato peeler: Herman Lay
# 1930: Neoprene: Wallace Carothers
# 1930: Nylon: Wallace Carothers
# 1930: Photography: Underwater Motion Picture Camera: Arthur C. Pillsbury
# 1931: the Radio telescope: Karl Jansky Grote Reber
# 1932: Polaroid glass: Edwin H. Land
# 1935: microwave radar: Robert Watson-Watt
# 1935: Trampoline: George Nissen and Larry Griswold
# 1935: Spectrophotometer: Arthur C. Hardy
# 1935: Casein fiber: Earl Whittier Stephen
# 1935: Hammond Organ: Laurens Hammond
# 1936: Pinsetter (bowling): Gottfried Schmidt
# 1937: Jet engine: Frank Whittle Hans von Ohain
# 1938: Fiberglass: Russell Games Slayter John H. Thomas
# 1938: Computer: Konrad Zuse (Germany) simultaneously as Atanasoff (United States)
# 1939: FM radio: Edwin H. Armstrong
# 1939: Helicopter: Igor Sikorsky
# 1939: View-master: William Gruber
# 1942: Bazooka Rocket Gun: Leslie A. Skinner C. N. Hickman
# 1942: Undersea oil pipeline: Hartley, Anglo-Iranian, Siemens in Operation Pluto
# 1943: Aqua-Lung: Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnan
# 1943: electronic programmable digital computer: Tommy Flowers [1]
# 1944: Electron spectrometer: Deutsch Elliot Evans
# 1945: Nuclear weapons (but note: chain reaction theory: 1933)
# 1946: microwave oven: Percy Spencer
# 1947: Transistor: William Shockley, Walter Brattain, John Bardeen
# 1947: Polaroid camera: Edwin Land
# 1948: Long Playing Record: Peter Carl Goldmark
# 1949: Atomic clocks
# 1952: fusion bomb: Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam
# 1952: hovercraft: Christopher Cockerell
# 1953: maser: Charles Townes
# 1953: medical ultrasonography
# 1954: transistor radio (dated from the from Regency TR1) (USA)
# 1954: first nuclear power reactor
# 1954: geodesic dome: Buckminster Fuller
# 1955: Velcro: George de Mestral
# 1957: Jet Boat: William Hamilton
# 1957: EEG topography: Walter Grey Walter
# 1957: Bubble Wrap - Alfred Fielding and Marc Chavannes of Sealed Air
# 1958: the Integrated circuit: Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments, Robert Noyce at Fairchild Semiconductor
# 1959: snowmobile: Joseph-Armand Bombardier
# 1960s: Packet switching: Donald Davies and Paul Baran, video games
# 1960: lasers: Theodore Maiman, at Hughes Aircraft
# 1962: Communications satellites: Arthur C. Clarke
# 1962: Light-emitting diode: Nick Holonyak
# 1963: Hypertext: Ted Nelson
# 1963: Computer mouse: Douglas Engelbart
# 1965: 8-track tapes: William Powell Lear
# 1968: Video game console: Ralph Baer
# 1970: Fiber optics
# 1971: E-mail: Ray Tomlinson
# 1971: the Microprocessor
# 1971: the Pocket calculator
# 1971: Magnetic resonance imaging: Raymond V. Damadian
# 1972: Computed Tomography: Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield
# 1973: Ethernet: Bob Metcalfe and David Boggs
# 1973: Monash University scientists report the world's first IVF pregnancy.
# 1974: Scramjet: NASA and United States Navy -- first operational prototype flown in 2002
# 1974: Heimlich Maneuever: Henry Heimlich
# 1975: digital camera: Steven Sasson
# 1977: the personal computer (dated from Commodore PET)
# 1978: Philips releases the laserdisc player
# 1978: Spring loaded camming device: Ray Jardine
# 1979: the Walkman: Akio Morita, Masaru Ibuka, Kozo Ohsone
# 1979: the cellular telephone (first commercially fielded version, NTT)
# 1970s: Tomahawk Cruise Missile (first computerized cruise missile)
# 1983: Domain Name System: Paul Mockapetris
# 1985: polymerase chain reaction: Kary Mullis
# 1985: DNA fingerprinting: Alec Jeffreys
# 1989: the World Wide Web: Tim Berners-Lee
19th century
# 1800: Electric battery: Alessandro Volta
# 1801: Jacquard loom: Joseph Marie Jacquard
# 1802: Screw propeller steamboat Phoenix: John Stevens
# 1802: gas stove: Zachäus Andreas Winzler
# 1805: Submarine Nautilus: Robert Fulton
# 1805: Refrigerator: Oliver Evans
# 1807: Steamboat Clermont: Robert Fulton
# 1808: Band saw: William Newberry
# 1811: Gun- Breechloader: Thornton (?)
# 1812: Metronome: Dietrich Nikolaus Winkel
# 1813: Hand printing press: George Clymer
# 1814: Steam Locomotive (Blucher): George Stephenson
# 1816: Miner's safety lamp: Humphry Davy
# 1816: Metronome: Johann Nepomuk Maelzel (reputed)
# 1816: Stirling engine: Robert Stirling
# 1816: Stethoscope: Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec
# 1817: Kaleidoscope: David Brewster
# 1819: Breech loading flintlock: John Hall
# 1821: Electric motor: Michael Faraday
# 1823: Electromagnet: William Sturgeon
# 1826: Photography: Joseph Nicéphore Niépce
# 1826: internal combustion engine: Samuel Morey
# 1827: Insulated wire: Joseph Henry
# 1827: Screw propeller: Josef Ressel
# 1827: Friction match: John Walker
# 1830: Lawn mower: Edwin Beard Budding
# 1831: Multiple coil magnet: Joseph Henry
# 1831: Magnetic acoustic telegraph: Joseph Henry (patented 1837)
# 1831: Reaper: Cyrus McCormick
# 1831: Electrical generator: Michael Faraday, Stefan Jedlik
# 1834: June 14 - Isaac Fischer, Jr. patents sandpaper
# 1834: The Hansom cab is patented
# 1834: Louis Braille perfects his Braille system
# 1835: Photogenic Drawing: William Henry Fox Talbot
# 1835: Revolver: Samuel Colt
# 1835: Morse code: Samuel Morse
# 1835: Electromechanical Relay: Joseph Henry
# 1836: Samuel Colt receives a patent for the Colt revolver (February 24)
# 1836: Improved screw propeller: John Ericsson
# 1836: Sewing machine: Josef Madersberger
# 1837: Photography: Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre
# 1837: First US electric printing press patented by Thomas Davenport (February 25)
# 1837: Steel plow: John Deere
# 1837: Standard diving dress: Augustus Siebe
# 1837: Camera Zoom Lens: Jozef Maximilián Petzval
# 1838: Electric telegraph: Charles Wheatstone
# 1838: Forerunner of Morse code: Alfred Vail
# 1838: closed diving suit with a helmet: Augustus Siebe
# 1839: Vulcanization of rubber: Charles Goodyear
# 1840: Frigate with submarine machinery SS Princeton: John Ericsson
# 1840: artificial fertilizer: Justus von Liebig
# 1842: Anaesthesia: Crawford Long
# 1843: Typewriter: Charles Thurber
# 1843: Fax machine: Alexander Bain
#
# 1844: Telegraph: Samuel Morse
# 1845: Portland cement: William Aspdin
# 1845: Double tube tire: Robert Thomson (inventor)
# 1846: Sewing machine: Elias Howe
# 1846: Rotary printing press: Richard M. Hoe
# 1849: Safety pin: Walter Hunt
# 1849: Francis turbine: James B. Francis
# 1852: Airship: Henri Giffard
# 1852: Passenger elevator: Elisha Otis
# 1852: Gyroscope: Léon Foucault
# 1853: Glider: Sir George Cayley
# 1855: Bunsen burner: Robert Bunsen
# 1855: Bessemer process: Henry Bessemer
# 1856: First celluloids: Alexander Parkes
# 1858: Undersea telegraph cable: Fredrick Newton Gisborne
# 1858: Shoe sole sewing machine: Lyman R. Blake
# 1858: Mason jar: John L. Mason
# 1859: Oil drill: Edwin L. Drake
# 1860: Linoleum: Fredrick Walton
# 1860: Repeating rifle: Oliver F. Winchester, Christopher Spencer
# 1860: Self-propelled torpedo: Ivan Lupis-Vuki?
# 1861: Ironclad USS Monitor: John Ericsson
# 1861: Regenerative Furnace: Carl Wilhelm Siemens
# 1862: Revolving machine gun: Richard J. Gatling
# 1862: Mechanical submarine: Narcís Monturiol i Estarriol
# 1862: Pasteurization: Louis Pasteur, Claude Bernard
# 1863: Player piano: Henri Fourneaux
# 1864: First concept typewriter: Peter Mitterhofer
# 1865: Compression ice machine: Thaddeus Lowe
# 1866: Dynamite: Alfred Nobel
# 1867:
# 1868: First practical typewriter: Christopher Sholes, Carlos Glidden and Samuel W. Soule, with assistance from James Densmore
# 1868: Air brake (rail): George Westinghouse
# 1868: Oleomargarine: Mege Mouries
# 1869: Vacuum cleaner: I.W. McGaffers
# 1870: Magic Lantern projector: Henry R. Heyl
# 1870: Stock ticker: Thomas Alva Edison
# 1870: Mobile Gasoline Engine, Automobile: Siegfried Marcus
# 1871: Cable car (railway): Andrew S. Hallidie
# 1871: Compressed air rock drill: Simon Ingersoll
# 1872: Celluloid (later development): John W. Hyatt
# 1872: Adding machine: Edmund D. Barbour
# 1873: Barbed wire: Joseph F. Glidden
# 1873: Railway knuckle coupler: Eli H. Janney
# 1873: Modern direct current electric motor: Zénobe Gramme
# 1874: Electric street car: Stephen Dudle Field
# 1875: Dynamo: William A. Anthony
# 1875: Gun- (magazine): Benjamin B. Hotchkiss
# 1876: Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell
# 1876: Telephone: Elisha Gray
# 1876: Carpet sweeper: Melville Bissell
# 1876: Gasoline carburettor: Daimler
# 1877: Stapler: Henry R. Heyl
# 1877: Induction motor: Nikola Tesla
# 1877: Phonograph: Thomas Alva Edison
# 1877: Electric welding: Elihu Thomson
# 1877: Twine Knotter: John Appleby
# 1878: Cathode ray tube: William Crookes
# 1878: Transparent film: Eastman Goodwin
# 1878: Rebreather: Henry Fleuss
# 1878: Incandescent Light bulb: Joseph Swan
# 1879: Pelton turbine: Lester Pelton
# 1879: Automobile engine: Karl Benz
# 1879: Cash register: James Ritty
# 1879: Automobile (Patent): George B. Seldon ... note did NOT invent auto
# 1880: Photophone: Alexander Graham Bell
# 1880: Roll film: George Eastman
# 1880: Safety razor: Kampfe Brothers
# 1880: Seismograph: John Milne
# 1881: Electric welding machine: Elihu Thomson
# 1881: Metal detector: Alexander Graham Bell
# 1882: Electric fan: Schuyler Skatts Wheeler
# 1882: Electric flat iron: Henry W. Seely
# 1883: Auto engine - compression ignition: Gottlieb Daimler
# 1883: two-phase (alternating current) induction motor: Nikola Tesla
# 1884: Linotype machine: Ottmar Mergenthaler
# 1884: Fountain pen: Lewis Waterman NB: Did not invent fountain pen, nor even "first practical fountain pen". Started manufacture in 1883, too.
# 1884: Punched card accounting: Herman Hollerith
# 1884: Trolley car, (electric): Frank Sprague, Karel Van de Poele
# 1885: Automobile, differential gear: Karl Benz
# 1885: Maxim gun: Hiram Stevens Maxim
# 1885: Motor cycle: Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach
# 1885: Alternating current transformer: William Stanley
# 1886: Gasoline engine: Gottlieb Daimler
# 1886: Improved phonograph cylinder: Tainter & Bell
# 1887: Monotype machine: Tolbert Lanston
# 1887: Contact lens: Adolf E. Fick, Eugene Kalt and August Muller
# 1887: Gramophone record: Emile Berliner
# 1887: Automobile, (gasoline): Gottlieb Daimler
# 1888: Polyphase AC Electric power system: Nikola Tesla (30 related patents.)
# 1888: Kodak hand camera: George Eastman
# 1888: Ballpoint pen: John Loud
# 1888: Pneumatic tube tire: John Boyd Dunlop
# 1888: Harvester-thresher: Matteson (?)
# 1888: Kinematograph: Augustin Le Prince
# 1889: Automobile, (steam): Sylvester Roper
# 1890: Pneumatic Hammer: Charles B. King
# 1891: Automobile Storage Battery: William Morrison
# 1891: Zipper: Whitcomb L. Judson
# 1891: Carborundum: Edward G. Acheson
# 1892: Color photography: Frederic E. Ives
# 1892: Automatic telephone exchange (electromechanical): Almon Strowger - First in commercial service.
# 1893: Photographic gun: E.J. Marcy
# 1893: Half tone engraving: Frederick Ives
# 1893: Wireless communication: Nikola Tesla
# 1895: Phatoptiken projector: Woodville Latham
# 1895: Phantascope: C. Francis Jenkins
# 1895: Disposable blades: King C. Gillette
# 1895: Diesel engine: Rudolf Diesel
# 1895: Radio signals: Guglielmo Marconi
# 1895: Shredded Wheat: Henry Perky
# 1896: Vitascope: Thomas Armat
# 1896: Steam turbine: Charles Curtis
# 1896: Electric stove: William S. Hadaway
# 1897: Automobile, magneto: Robert Bosch
# 1898: Remote control: Nikola Tesla
# 1899: Automobile self starter: Clyde J. Coleman
# 1899: Magnetic tape recorder: Valdemar Poulsen
# 1899: Gas turbine: Charles Curtis
18th cent.
# 1701: Seed drill: Jethro Tull
# 1705: Steam piston engine: Thomas Newcomen
# 1709: Piano: Bartolomeo Cristofori
# 1710: Thermometer: René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur
# 1711: Tuning fork: John Shore
# 1714: Mercury thermometer: Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit
# 1730: Mariner's quadrant: Thomas Godfrey
# 1731: Sextant: John Hadley
# 1733: Flying shuttle: John Kay (Flying Shuttle)
# 1742: Franklin stove: Benjamin Franklin
# 1750: Flatboat: Jacob Yoder
# 1752: Lightning rod: Benjamin Franklin
# 1762: Iron smelting process: Jared Eliot
# 1767: Spinning jenny: James Hargreaves
# 1767: Carbonated water: Joseph Priestley
# 1769: Steam engine: James Watt
# 1769: Water Frame: Richard Arkwright
# 1775: Submarine Turtle: David Bushnell
# 1777: Card teeth making machine: Oliver Evans
# 1777: Circular saw: Samuel Miller
# 1779: Spinning mule: Samuel Crompton
# 1783: Multitubular boiler engine: John Stevens
# 1783: Parachute: Jean Pierre Blanchard
# 1783: Hot air balloon: Montgolfier brothers
# 1784: Bifocals: Benjamin Franklin
# 1784: Shrapnel shell: Henry Shrapnel
# 1785: Power loom: Edmund Cartwright
# 1785: Automatic flour mill: Oliver Evans
# 1787: Non-condensing high pressure Engine: Oliver Evans
# 1790: Cut and head nail machine: Jacob Perkins
# 1791: Steamboat: John Fitch
# 1791: Artificial teeth: Nicholas Dubois De Chemant
# 1793: Cotton gin: Eli Whitney
# 1793: Optical telegraph: Claude Chappe
# 1797: Cast iron plow: Charles Newbold
# 1798: Vaccination: Edward Jenner
# 1798: Lithography: Alois Senefelder
# 1799: Seeding machine: Eliakim Spooner
17th century
* 1608: Telescope: Hans Lippershey
* 1609: Microscope: Galileo Galilei
* 1620: Slide rule: William Oughtred
* 1623: Automatic calculator: Wilhelm Schickard
* 1642: Adding machine: Blaise Pascal
* 1643: Barometer: Evangelista Torricelli
* 1645: Vacuum pump: Otto von Guericke
* 1657: Pendulum clock: Christiaan Huygens
* 1698: Steam engine: Thomas Savery
-
CC makes the GOP talking-point that the "natural home" for Hispanics is the GOP, because they're Catholic, pro-life, and anti-homosexual marriage.
He's behind the times.
"The AP looked at a more specific breakdown, and found that the aforementioned figures were augmented by the older Hispanics. They reported that the younger generation and those who speak more English than Spanish are less likely to identify as Catholic and are less likely to oppose legalized abortion or gay “marriage.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/poll-finds-catholic-identity-of-young-latinos-decreasing/ (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/poll-finds-catholic-identity-of-young-latinos-decreasing/)
-
"They have no intellectual anchor to American economic conservative principles. They work hard because it pays well. But they quickly find that the government pays well too. Because they have no principled anchor, they are susceptible to the snare of promises of largesse and race demagogeury.
..."
Those that work hard do so because it is part of their culture, for them it is shameful to be lazy. Just like others who seek fortune they will work at what ever they get until they can get better then they move up.
But yes the last paragraph nails it:
"...
Illegal Hispanics are ripe for the Leftist plucking. That is exactly why the Leftists and the New World Order captains want them here. Once they're normalized, Leftist one-party rule is established."
They are ignorant and even the "worker group" is vulnerable to the seduction of something for nothing and peer pressure from the race pimps.
Want the bums to leave, no fences required, no border patrol required; simply cut off all free stuff and watch them leave.
-
You know, I am Irish. People said the same things about the Irish when they came here. I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have. Like I said in another post, I'd rather live next door to Ricardo Montalban than to Rachael Maddow
If you are Irish then you have no business voting in USA elections. I am sure that you probably meant that you are an American of Irish descent.
To which I am forced to respond, "So what?"
This is America. If you were born in Ireland, immigrated to the USA and became a naturalized citizen you would not technically be Irish anymore. You would be an American.
Both of my parents were immigrants. I was born in Texas. I do not and never have referred to myself as anything other than "American." Not a hyphenated American but an American. Or sometimes, when I am trying to annoy someone, "Texan." (And as a side point, both of my parents came to the USA with college educations, my father earned a Phd at Hopkins. They were the type of immigrant that the US once valued. No more.)
Curious that you would choose to live next door to Ricardo Montalban. He was a citizen of Mexico and never even bothered to apply for US citizenship. I assume that he was here legally but who cares now that he's room temperature. I have no idea what his politics were but he advocated for hispanics through a foundation that he founded and operated so take that for what it's worth. Wikipedia says that at some point he declared he was a "proud American." That sounds pretty "patriotic" until you realize that practically everyone south of the border believes that it is insulting for citizens of the USA to refer to themselves as "Americans." They believe that if you are from South or Central America then you are every bit as much an American as someone from North America. So, Ricardo's statement, in context, means exactly that...not much.
What color one's skin is has zero to do with any discussion of legal or illegal immigration and to imply or assert that it does is not worthy of this forum. That is the province of the left.
I wouldn't want to live next to Rachel Maddow any more than she would want to live next to me. Again, I have no idea what the point is to that comment but it does not move this discussion forward in a productive manner.
-
Things invented by white guys:
Okay, but here's the real truth (http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354680256&sr=1-1&keywords=how+the+scots+invented+the+modern+world) of the matter. And it does always crack me up when I hear leftists say that Africans and Egyptians invented everything first but somehow mysteriously lost it (or my favorite, had it stolen by white Europeans) and/or failed to do anything with their "inventions."
-
^ There are bad apples in every bunch.
But on the whole, I'd say that Mexicans are harder workers than certain ethnic groups born in America
Racial stereotyping is unnecessary regardless of who it comes from and what the context is. MLK's admonition, now long forgotten by the left, to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is one of the few truths ever spoken by a leftist.
-
The USA as we have known it is a distinctly European creation. In particular it is the fusion of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition with continental liberalism (the classical liberalism) stemming from the Renaissance and Reformation. Those who argue for unfettered migration from places like Mexico commit the fallacy of believing populations are plug-and-play. We can just plug X number of these and Y number of those in place of boring old white bread WASPy types and everything will be the same but with a phone book full of Ramirez instead of Johnson. Sorry. Everything will not be the same.
You cannot import mass numbers of Third Worlders without transforming into the Third World. I have already seen it personally on a micro scale. I will be damned if I am going to do anything but oppose it. Anyone blithely in favor of it hasn't done much in the way of long term thinking.
-
You cannot import mass numbers of Third Worlders without transforming into the Third World. I have already seen it personally on a micro scale.
As has Victor Davis Hansen. He's seen California turned into a turd-world sh*thole where the illegal criminals run rampant, stealing everything including that which *is* nailed down and the "authorities" turn a blind eye to them and their efforts in favor of ticketing Whites violating the traffic laws.
So, I'm asking; where are the intelligent, educated, hard-working Mexicans/"hispanics" that are supposedly devoting their time and energies toward helping create a better California?
-
California is what happens when unchecked illegal immigration and liberalism are taken to their logical conclusion.
California's descent into social and fiscal anarchy is one of those famous "states are the laboratories of democracy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy) situations.
In this case, though, the lab turns out to be that of Dr. Frankenstein and the results of the experiment are completely predictable.
-
California is what happens when unchecked illegal immigration and liberalism are taken to their logical conclusion.
Yes. But unless we're willing to interrogate those Mexicans who want to emigrate as to their reasons for wanting to come here -- and one absolutely cannot assume those reasons beneficially traditional -- legal immigration of them and other turd-world citizens remains a risk UNTIL WE CAN GET RID OF THE LEFT.
California's descent into social and fiscal anarchy is one of those famous "states are the laboratories of democracy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy) situations.
In this case, though, the lab turns out to be that of Dr. Frankenstein and the results of the experiment are completely predictable.
They are, and I'm quite willing to see them sink. I believe Obongo and his merry band of thugs will, however, provide a bailout, the first of many.
-
Didn't realize anyone here was arguing for the unfettered immigration of anyone. I thought we were talking about legal immigration, I know I was.
-
If los Mexicanos, illegales o no, are such great workers, then let them fix their own f-cking country before lowering ours to their sub third world standards.
And no, we do not need legal immigrants now, either. We're f-cking broke, financially and immigration policy-wise.
-
Didn't realize anyone here was arguing for the unfettered immigration of anyone. I thought we were talking about legal immigration, I know I was.
I can only go on what was written.
CC said that, "Hispanics hate the GOP position on immigration, and we need their votes...So we need to re-tool our message on immigration."
"Retooling" means changing what is.
Now, the GOP position on immigration is not exactly set in stone. On the one hand you have the RINO's who want to open the southern border via amnesty. That is to say, grant amnesty to all the illegals currently in the US which, as history has more than adequately demonstrated, encourages even more illegal immigration...but this is a minority view among Republicans. The majority conservative base believes that our borders, especially the southern border, should be secure and that normal (legal) immigration paths should be the only way for non-Americans to gain entry. The base has other reasons for securing the border, restricting the inflow of drug traffickers and terrorists being chief among them.
So...given that the defacto GOP position on immigration (what the base wants) is pretty much the polar opposite of the Democrats, any "retooling" of that position means becoming more like the left. It is not much of a leap at all for the GOP position on immigration to be retooled to the point where we have a difference without a distinction.
And that would pretty much be unfettered immigration. Making it "legal immigration" is but a matter of Democrats and RINOs conspiring to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Just words, really.
-
And no, we do not need legal immigrants now, either. We're f-cking broke, financially and immigration policy-wise.
I have to disagree with this position, too.
We want selective legal immigration. It should be our policy to poach the best people from other countries. It makes us stronger and it makes them weaker. We want their scientists and engineers. We want their monied venture capitalists. We want their best. If it was possible we should be exporting our losers to other countries.
But, noooooo! Our defacto policy is to let zillions of poor and stupid (but hard working) illegals into our country. They become instant welfare recipients and, thanks to massive, unacknowledged voter fraud, instant Democrat voters.
Up is down. Black is white. Right and wrong are merely a matter of perspective. Brave new world.
-
Trap, my problem is that we need a cooling off period for immigration, a 5 year freeze if you will, like occurred in the latter 19th Century, so that we can assimilate what we already have.
I understand the idea of poaching the best and the brightest, but that is not the way Ogabe, or Congress for that matter, thinks.
Let us get our house in order before we start/continue adding more.
-
Bottom line - We know Catholics of any racial background are not immune from voting for leftists whose goal is to destroy traditional American values, ideals and Founding principles. We know immigrants (regardless of origin, religion or method of entry) are not all that interested anymore in assimilating into traditional America, the enclave model has replaced the melting pot model, I see hundreds and hundreds of unassimilated Mexicans on Lake St every day, shops advertise in Spanish, not English, there is no assimilation, there is nothing but the promise that a free sh*t America can give them. You want their vote? Offer them free sh*t, and then lets see how many r's win elections against d's! Purposely courting any racial group is stupid, either the promises of liberty established by our Founders and your own hard work and determination are enough or it isn't. If it isn't then you can KMA and stay/get out of my country!
-
I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have.
That's out of line.
Is it? Perhaps you missed this little gem:
No. We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics". They're the largest "minority" group in the country -- is it 30% by now -- how many more do you want until we're the minority in our own country? Damn.
That sounds like a keep-it-white attitude to me. "We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics"". Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here
-
CC said that, "Hispanics hate the GOP position on immigration, and we need their votes...So we need to re-tool our message on immigration."
"Retooling" means changing what is.
If thats what it means then I chose the wrong word, because thats not what I meant.
I meant we need to present it in a way that they get it, and then present it forcefully with good speakers.
.......CC makes the GOP talking-point that the "natural home" for Hispanics is the GOP, because they're Catholic, pro-life, and anti-homosexual marriage. Last time I looked, "Catholic" was not an indicator of conservatism or Republican party affiliation. Catholicism as it is practiced by most Americans is pro-life liberalism, and that's how the majority of Catholics vote. And for the majority of Catholics, "pro-life" is less important that voting for Democrats. That's just the cold hard truth CC.......
You're right, and I should have left the "Catholic" part out of it. But it remains that they're mostly pro-life, and anti-homosexual marriage, and like all people want a prosperous place to live, and should be voting Republican.
And for that matter, the same goes for many blacks. In California, over 80 of blacks voted against gay marriage last time around, an uncomfortable fact for the Left which the Left tried to ignore. They should be voting GOP too, but they have been brainwashed.
-
I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have.
That's out of line.
Is it? Perhaps you missed this little gem:
No. We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics". They're the largest "minority" group in the country -- is it 30% by now -- how many more do you want until we're the minority in our own country? Damn.
That sounds like a keep-it-white attitude to me. "We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics"". Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here
And yet it is you who resorts to slanderous imputations of derogatory stereotype against another member. IMO it is beneath contempt and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What the hell is wrong with you?
-
I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have.
That's out of line.
Is it? Perhaps you missed this little gem:
No. We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics". They're the largest "minority" group in the country -- is it 30% by now -- how many more do you want until we're the minority in our own country? Damn.
That sounds like a keep-it-white attitude to me. "We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics"". Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here
And yet it is you who resorts to slanderous imputations of derogatory stereotype against another member. IMO it is beneath contempt and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What the hell is wrong with you?
If telling the truth is a slanderous imputation of derogatory stereotype, then guilty as charged. Apparently you are defending that racist post, which makes you no better.
If I call a person an a-hole, thats rude. If I call an a-hole an a-hole, then thats just telling it like it is.
So you tell me: What the hell is wrong with YOU!!?
-
So you tell me: What the hell is wrong with YOU!!?
I have little time or patience for assholes or slackjawed trolls who slanderously paint with a broad brush. Enjoy your time here - I'm betting it will be short.
-
CC, it is not racist to observe that the uniquely American culture is undermined by indiscriminate illegal OR legal immigration from the third-world. The fact that they are Hispanic is beside the point. They are un-American, and we are not assimilating them to BE American. Further, they do not wish to be assimilated.
That is a threat to the uniquely American culture, and that culture has value. The only way that third-world immigration without thought to the effect on the American culture can be viewed as non-threatening is to deny that an American culture even exists, or that it is worth protecting and preserving.
-
Excellent post IDP!
Yes American values are EXCEPTIONAL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Nn4IH3yng4k#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Nn4IH3yng4k#!)
BTW: Pandora and Alphabet Soup are my friends and our country would be so much better off to have more of them and their values among our midst. I know I would be honored and truly blessed if they were my neighbors.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, hasn't the United States of America, since it's birth, been the 'leader of the free world', THE example of Sovereignty? Well, in the past few hundreds of years, those in the rest of the world that have been 'something else', have continued on down their path and our nation has slowly been joining 'them', it is one of the biggest things conservatives fight against, right? We (the U.S.) are becoming luke warm, more socialist (because of removing God and His morals, values, etc... IMO, but that's another thread)... I agree with many posters here, immigration needs to currently be halted and 'fixed' before resuming. FENCE. I don't give a crap what color or nationality one is, IF they want to be here, a complete and truthful Constitution and History Test must be taken before consideration. They must know WHY we are Sovereign, and WHY we are the envy of the world before being allowed to participate in OUR culture. Of course, this would include education in our own schools... and well, that is a whole different problem.
-
If telling the truth is a slanderous imputation of derogatory stereotype, then guilty as charged. Apparently you are defending that racist post, which makes you no better.
If I call a person an a-hole, thats rude. If I call an a-hole an a-hole, then thats just telling it like it is.
So you tell me: What the hell is wrong with YOU!!?
Are you sure you want to go here? Think on it. The clock is ticking.
-
Just so there is no ambiguity, I am calling for "keep it white". Only the self-delusional can perceive no difference between the civilizations created and perpetuated by white people, and those created by others. Is it a coincidence that Europe is what it is, Africa is what it is, and the Middle East is what it is? It's the latitude and longitude maybe? The pro-immigration argument might have had some merit back when this country was still self-assured enough to expect the burden of assimilation to be the immigrant's, but those days are long, long gone. Post-1965 immigration is nothing more than colonization with the aim of displacing the original population. In light of that, I couldn't care less how proficient they might be at pulling lettuce heads out of the ground.
I am speaking only for myself here and am not putting words in anyone's mouth, so if you want to accuse anyone of racism I will happily take those arrows. It has been this country's fatal conceit since 1965 that it can just open itself up to mass immigration from all over the world and not fundamentally transform itself in the process. I don't even see how that is up for debate, because many urban swaths of this country have in fact already been transformed. You want this for the entire country? I most definitely do not.
-
One need only look at the policies and public statements of La Raza (literally "the race") to understand the south of the border influx problem as it truly is. It is, as Glock32 stated, an attempt at colonization.
-
I am afraid I cannot drum up the same ferver to keep things "white" that you have.
That's out of line.
Is it? Perhaps you missed this little gem:
No. We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics". They're the largest "minority" group in the country -- is it 30% by now -- how many more do you want until we're the minority in our own country? Damn.
That sounds like a keep-it-white attitude to me. "We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics"". Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here
You are treading on thin ice, pal. I didn't call them "feelthy taco benders", you did. I'm *asking* that you do not twist my words like that again.
Now, I'm going to point something out to you that you apparently fail to grasp -- another thing:
We cannot allow the importation of a large cohort of *any* population -- even allowing for assimilation -- particularly one with a different culture, and expect to be the same country. The Statue of Liberty will still be here (maybe) and The Empire State Building, the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore, and a lot of the infrastructure will make the United States LOOK like it always has, but it will not be once the traditional American population is replaced. This would apply to Germans or the Swiss or Norwegians, not just Mexicans. An overwhelmingly Swiss America will not be America.
I don't know about you, but I have a problem with that. So does Mexico, for instance, which is why immigrants are not allowed to participate in their political process nor own property; they want to keep Mexico for the Mexicans.
We have every right in the world to want to keep our own country, where those who are native-born and those born of European descent/Western are the majority -- nobody that I'm aware of sees any problem with that as regards .... Mexico, Nigeria, Germany ... except for the muslims and their traitorous Western-born accomplices -- so to call it wrong because it's US is a faulty premise promoted by the Left.
You want to respond to any of the several points I've made on this thread, instead of your less-than-amusing practice of moving on to your next talking point, and then resorting to the race card.
Try the one where I linked to a piece that laid out how your Mexican Catholics are not so much Catholic these days and are no longer such staunch opposers of abortion and homosexual "marriage".
-
Well said, Pandora. And I am thoroughly impressed with your patience and restraint.
-
Well said, Pandora. And I am thoroughly impressed with your patience and restraint.
Thank you very much, trap.
I am making an effort to not take out on this guy my rage and frustration at the results of the election and the ongoing transformation of my country, hoping that a reasoned explanation instead will give him pause.
But if anybody else wields the ban-hammer, should it become necessary, ahead of me, I'm comin' to yer house. ;)
-
Well said, Pandora. And I am thoroughly impressed with your patience and restraint.
Thank you very much, trap.
I am making an effort to not take out on this guy my rage and frustration at the results of the election and the ongoing transformation of my country, hoping that a reasoned explanation instead will give him pause.
But if anybody else wields the ban-hammer, should it become necessary, ahead of me, I'm comin' to yer house. ;)
Well first of all you know that I always play out more than enough rope before going in that direction so it wouldn't happen too quickly from me. And of course I know that you can take care of yourself quite handily and need no assistance from me.
As sort of an FYI to all members, we are never eager to wield the ultimate conversation ender here at IAL...it is a last resort. We are especially not eager to use it on someone who has been here for many months and has contributed many, many useful posts, contributed useful and valuable points, etc. Members here are afforded every opportunity to screw up and then to retreat from, let's say, awkward situations. Thankfully, our members are of an extremely high quality and this almost never happens to begin with. But we're all human so every once in a while it does.
And for the benefit of CC...The ball is squarely in your court, CC. What you do next is entirely your choice. Choose wisely.
-
I have little time or patience for assholes or slackjawed trolls who slanderously paint with a broad brush. Enjoy your time here - I'm betting it will be short.
I love how you use slackjawed slander to attack what you perceive as slackjawed slander. Nothing like a healthy dose of hypocrisy in the morning.
CC, it is not racist to observe that the uniquely American culture is undermined by indiscriminate illegal OR legal immigration from the third-world. The fact that they are Hispanic is beside the point. They are un-American, and we are not assimilating them to BE American. Further, they do not wish to be assimilated..........
Fair point, and I agree with you. And if he had said it the way you just did then it would not have raised my eyebrow.
But the focus of the post was not on those things, but rather on their ethnicity. Hence my reaction.
Anyways, as far as I'm concerned we have all said our peace on this tangential issue. Maybe we should get back to the topic.
And for the benefit of CC...The ball is squarely in your court, CC. What you do next is entirely your choice. Choose wisely.
I choose to speak my mind and call things as I see them. Thats what is called the free exchange of ideas. If the free exchange of ideas can get me banned then it is of no matter, because I do not want to be anywhere where the the free exchange of ideas is condemned, especially if those ideas are honest and with merit.
EDIT: And one other thing, maybe you guys should consider how things might sound to other peoples' ears. I know myself that I have said things to people and those people have gotten mad at me, and I was totally dumbfounded as to why. Whatever I said sounded innocent enough to me, but apparently it was received differently by others. So consider this post once again:
"We don't need any more Mexicans, nor "hispanics". They're the largest "minority" group in the country -- is it 30% by now -- how many more do you want until we're the minority in our own country? Damn."
Are you trying to tell me that you cannot see how that might be received by someone else's ears? Seriously? If it was not meant to be racist, then fine; I'll accept that. But you should also accept how such a post can be perceived. My perception of it was an understandable one, and therefore my response was reasonable.
-
Not so fast.
Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here.
As you imputed that to my post, that is not a "free exchange of ideas", neither is it honest nor does it have merit.
That is where you went off the rails and if you want to move on and get back on topic, you need to start by dealing properly with that bit of undeserved slander.
-
Not so fast.
Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here.
And I am sure that people who read the entire post know that was a purposeful sarcastic stereotypical comment on my part meant to highlight the point of my post.
Its a twist in Rush Limbaugh's motus operandi, which is to use the absurd to illustrate the absurd.
-
Not so fast.
Yah, keep those feelthy taco benders out of here.
And I am sure that people who read the entire post know that was a purposeful sarcastic stereotypical comment on my part meant to highlight the point of my post.
Its a twist in Rush Limbaugh's motus operandi, which is to use the absurd to illustrate the absurd.
You're sure, are ye? Judging from the responses by others 'round here, they "knew" no such thing and you are no Rush Limbaugh.
So, since you won't just volunteer one, and as I believe I'm owed one, I expect an apology.
-
.......So, since you won't just volunteer one, and as I believe I'm owed one, I expect an apology.
Well at this point you are not getting one. What you posted can easily be perceived as racist. If you insist it is not, then I accept that. It was not meant to be racist: Fine.
But reasonable, fair-minded people could perceive it to be racist, your intentions notwithstanding. And since it was a fair perception on my part, then I consider my response to be reasonable, even though it might have been in error, and I will not apologize for an honest error, as I am sure you will not.
As I said in my previous post, "maybe you guys should consider how things might sound to other peoples' ears. I know myself that I have said things to people and those people have gotten mad at me, and I was totally dumbfounded as to why. Whatever I said sounded innocent enough to me, but apparently it was received differently by others,"
If you are willing to admit that your wording was poor and not well thought out and that it could be taken the wrong way, then I might reconsider your request.
-
Oh hell no. You do NOT get to perceive as you choose and put the onus on me for your perceptions. I wrote what I wrote and you choose to see it as my poor choice of words?
You are not calling the shots here, pal.
Apologize.
-
I know Rush Limbaugh...
-
Oh hell no. You do NOT get to perceive as you choose and put the onus on me for your perceptions..........
I do if your post can be perceived that way. And I already said that I accept your insistence that it was not meant to be racist.
But if you are going to sit here and say that there is no way that a fair-minded person could possibly perceive your post the way I did then you are just a fundamentally dishonest person.
You are not calling the shots here, pal.
I never said I was.
Apologize.
I see no need to as long as you stubbornly hold to the idea that there is no way that a fair-minded person could possibly perceive your post the way I did.
In fact, this is my last response to anything you post.
-
I don't think our immigration process can handle more people immigrating to the US. It's ridiculous what people go through to get here legally.
*
The American point of view about liberty et al is the culmination of centuries of thought, known now as western thought or culture. To get a sense of it one begins with ancient Greek and Rome, arrives at the Magna Carta and then sees it embodied in the founding documents. Many of the Founders were well versed in what are called the Great Books--writers through out history who have attempted to come to an understanding of man's role in the world and with God (or the supernatural life). This point of view from its rudimentry beginnings to today can be traced quite easily. This belief (western thought) has been deposited with those of a European background (white--as if that was only one color). This western thought is not withheld from anyone of another culture/ ethnic background. They are free to adopt it and derive success from it. However, many cultures do not see man in the same light as western thinkers do. This perhaps because the western way of thought is embued with Christian principles. I believe, for example, that some cultures do not believe in the idea of a self-formed conscience (Muslim? which would explain a book with hundreds of rules to live by).
My point is that western thought seeks to codify certain "trues" about man. Other cultures can accept those trues only if they accept the way of thinking that reaches those conclusions.
In decades past, great groups of immigrants basically had to "get with the program" if they wanted success for themselves or their children--they had to assimilate and while they may have kept their language or religion or customs they accepted the American way of thinking. The principles of western culture may have been foreign to them but they were willing to adopt them in order to claim some part of its success in America. Now we have people who want a piece of the pie without accepting the culture that created the pie.
I believe what the founding documents say applies to all not just white Europeans. They happen to be the ones who codified it.
While it may appear that a particular group should be aminable to American principles of liberty etc (what I would term now as conservative ideas) because some of their supposed religious beliefs coincide with some of the truths we hold to be self-evident, they are not familiar with the way of thought that holds those truths to be self-evident. But rather than expecting these groups to gain such an understanding as in the past they are allowed to flounder in their ignorance.
-
Oh hell no. You do NOT get to perceive as you choose and put the onus on me for your perceptions..........
I do if your post can be perceived that way. And I already said that I accept your insistence that it was not meant to be racist.
But if you are going to sit here and say that there is no way that a fair-minded person could possibly perceive your post the way I did then you are just a fundamentally dishonest person.
You are not calling the shots here, pal.
I never said I was.
Apologize.
I see no need to as long as you stubbornly hold to the idea that there is no way that a fair-minded person could possibly perceive your post the way I did.
In fact, this is my last response to anything you post.
He chose...poorly.
-
The phrase "pick you battles" comes to mind too, chose poorly strike 2. Questioning a persons intent is one thing, putting words in their mouth...not so much.
-
Sorry I've been absent for the brouhaha. I've been out in the sales field competing directly with cheap Mexican labor.
-
Oh hell no. You do NOT get to perceive as you choose and put the onus on me for your perceptions..........
I do if your post can be perceived that way. And I already said that I accept your insistence that it was not meant to be racist.
But if you are going to sit here and say that there is no way that a fair-minded person could possibly perceive your post the way I did then you are just a fundamentally dishonest person.
You are not calling the shots here, pal.
I never said I was.
Apologize.
I see no need to as long as you stubbornly hold to the idea that there is no way that a fair-minded person could possibly perceive your post the way I did.
In fact, this is my last response to anything you post.
He chose poorly.
He did.
I don't care that he has a differing opinion on this or any issue; I do care that he chose to insult, issue personal attacks and then refuse to acknowledge his error, much less apologize, and attempt to put responsibility for that on me, and I would see it the same no matter who was his target.
He's been cautioned, both on the board and off, and chose to be an escalating asshole.
So, I'm going to relieve him of the chore and choice to ignore my posts in the future.
-
Sorry I've been absent for the brouhaha. I've been out in the sales field competing directly with cheap Mexican labor.
You crack me up sometimes. This is one of those times.
-
Yeah, as in the words "legal immigration" not being interpreted as enforcing existing laws but interpreted as buying into the Republican acquiescence plan.
It is virtually impossible to make a statement about immigration that appeals to everyone and it is quite easy to be misinterpreted and in some way be maligned or to perceive it in some way.
-
"He's been cautioned, both on the board and off, and chose to be an escalating asshole.
So, I'm going to relieve him of the chore and choice to ignore my posts in the future."
This was the second topic he doggedly persisted to insult.
-
And the last.
-
The problem with any attempt to negotiate on immigration is that it's just like taxes. The Republicans agree to tax increases for Democrat promises to cut spending...eventually...maybe...tomorrow. Immigration is the same. There should be no conversation on immigration policy that does not begin with securing the border first. Any good faith negotiators would be fine with that. That they aren't tells you everything about their intentions. Their intent is to have the Republicans cave on yet another important issue, in exchange for empty promises that are immediately forgotten.
-
"He's been cautioned, both on the board and off, and chose to be an escalating asshole.
So, I'm going to relieve him of the chore and choice to ignore my posts in the future."
This was the second topic he doggedly persisted to insult.
Persistence is a virtue. Stubbornness, not so much. Pity.
-
.......So, since you won't just volunteer one, and as I believe I'm owed one, I expect an apology.
Well at this point you are not getting one. What you posted can easily be perceived as racist. If you insist it is not, then I accept that. It was not meant to be racist: Fine.
But reasonable, fair-minded people could perceive it to be racist, your intentions notwithstanding. And since it was a fair perception on my part, then I consider my response to be reasonable, even though it might have been in error, and I will not apologize for an honest error, as I am sure you will not.
As I said in my previous post, "maybe you guys should consider how things might sound to other peoples' ears. I know myself that I have said things to people and those people have gotten mad at me, and I was totally dumbfounded as to why. Whatever I said sounded innocent enough to me, but apparently it was received differently by others,"
If you are willing to admit that your wording was poor and not well thought out and that it could be taken the wrong way, then I might reconsider your request.
Hey dumbass, "Mexican" isn't a race. Neither is hispanic. I do consider how things might sound to anothers ears and what you write is offensive and out of line. I offered it up in the hopes that you would pull your head out and act like you want to be a part of this group instead of fighting with everyone around you. I'll not make that mistake again. The conclusion that you immediately jump to, and your methods of communication reveals your inclination to think the worst of people who you really should consider your ally. That you are comfortable going there and indeed are now doubling-down on your slander places you decidedly in my enemies territory. That you want to make this the hill you die on amuses me greatly.
Keep it up mijo.
-
Yeah, as in the words "legal immigration" not being interpreted as enforcing existing laws but interpreted as buying into the Republican acquiescence plan.
It is virtually impossible to make a statement about immigration that appeals to everyone and it is quite easy to be misinterpreted and in some way be maligned or to perceive it in some way.
And yet, there is no excuse for making it personal, for using insults in an argument and especially for using "race" in that way.
I detest the tactics of the left.
-
Sometimes people go out of their way to manufacture a crisis in order to make themselves seem important and/or to buttress a fragile ego...that is a hallmark of the Ruling Class elite I have no patience for and no desire to emulate.
-
just so I understand --what is the problem with our current immigration policy that we need to negotiate on?
-
just so I understand --what is the problem with our current immigration policy that we need to negotiate on?
It's not being enforced?
-
just so I understand --what is the problem with our current immigration policy that we need to negotiate on?
It's not being enforced?
seems like we need enforcement not negotiation
-
The whole impetus for "negotiation" is the feckless GOP once again swallowing all the Left's narratives and premises. Oh the Hispanics hate us because we don't immediately bestow full citizenship on everyone who steps over the border. We better reach out to them! We can't let the Democrats have a monopoly on all the non-white voters!
So there's where "negotiation" comes from. Rush offered another alternative. Offer amnesty with the condition that anyone who accepts it cannot vote for 25 years. See if the Left would take that deal. Of course they wouldn't, because this whole thing is about manufacturing new Democrats overnight.
-
Then the refrain should be ENFORCEMENT.
Then let the dems explain why we can't do that instead of the republicans always letting the dems lead the discussion.
-
Because they've fully bought into the idea that "enforcement" is the same thing as being racist and anti-Hispanic. The only real skill the Republican party leadership has is painting itself into corners. They're great at that.
-
Then the refrain should be ENFORCEMENT.
Then let the dems explain why we can't do that instead of the republicans always letting the dems lead the discussion.
Because it's raaaycissss! That's their story and they're sticking to it because the group with which we have the biggest enforcement headache is Mexican/"hispanic" due to border proximity. And now that applies as well to the 'slims who are using the illegal Mexican method of border infiltration.
We are the United States of America; Congress pisses away more money on bullcrap than it would cost to put people on the border and actually enforce our sovereignty. Even if that is not a true statement, that the cost would be prohibitive, I don't care; this is one of the duties and responsibilities assigned the Federal government by the Constitution. That they won't do it tells me all I need to know about their intentions.
eta: Ah. I see Glock has beat me to it again. Great minds .......
-
Because they've fully bought into the idea that "enforcement" is the same thing as being racist and anti-Hispanic...
Exactly. I have had people say to me, that claiming the United States of America is SOVEREIGN is RACIST. That is the level of intelligence out there.
-
Opps, posted in wrong topic. Post withdrawn.
-
if every penny of my taxes went to securing this nation I'd be good with that.....
-
Most pennies of your taxes go to securing Democrat votes. That's the short version of it.
-
Most pennies of your taxes go to securing Democrat votes. That's the short version of it.
And supporting Democrat votes. I canNOT stand that my property taxes are paying for the schools around here, and some of the teachers who are as anti-American as they come.
-
When I was a little bitty boy my Grandpa said "I paid for you mother's education your father should pay for yours".
-
... I can NOT stand that my property taxes are paying for the schools around here, and some of the teachers who are as anti-American as they come.
HEAR, HEAR! We homeschooled from '97 until '12 ... and have to support a 'school' system we did not want or use.
-
Wow.....We do not need to shut down LEGAL immigration. We do not need to make it easier and we do not need to legalize those here. Those who strive to come here legally are not the issue, they are part of the solution.
I'm not good at this...let me see if I can explain my point from the perspective of small business. I have many small business friends. We meet each month. Today, most use ( I'd state forced) some type of "foreign" labor, rarely used a decade ago, and you know what, they are hard workers and do a good job. There is a strong work ethic, but highly suseptable to the trappings of "free", frankly, just like everyone else. It's predictable they will vote democrat. The change I've witnessed over the last 20 years has not happened because my buddies are greedy bastages and want to make as much money as possible...... But because of an overabundance of taxation, regulation, gov't interference at every level.......so the unskilled "foreign" worker fills a need, not created for profits sake alone, but from the necessity to keep a business viable. In a world where small business profits are squeezed to the brink and you have a family to care for, that unskilled worker has become essential.... Since the 1980's, The United States of America has been creating this need. As long as a landscaper must buy 200.00 worth of permits for a 1000.00 dollar job, there will be illegal, unskilled labor.
I'm doing some remodeling of my business. The skilled aspects( plumbing, electrical) of what I need does not come from the "unskilled" crowd. Until we create a business friendly enviroment, at every level of gov't, we will continue to be overrun with illegals. We can enforce the borders, fine people, it won't matter.
Of course, it aint happening. I'd venture a guess the unskilled have no real interest to become a citizen. They are looking for work. They will take what free chit dems will give them and still show up at 6am and work til darkthirty. They leave an area when: 1) the work dries up...that's it. Now, the work may dry up because everyone will go out of business, but it would be much more effective if the guy who hires over half the population didn't feel the need to cut costs by hiring illegals.
-
Well said. It is also driven by the lack of desire in other groups to do the work. They are privileged, either by birth, intellect, or government largesse and will. not. do. it.
-
I want to respond to a couple of things in your post, Don, but right now I need a nap, so I'll do it later.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
-
Well said. It is also driven by the lack of desire in other groups to do the work. They are privileged, either by birth, intellect, or government largesse and will. not. do. it.
I didn't want to comment on the lack of desire. There are good workers to be found if the mechnisms( lower taxes) were in place to which would move the illegals back home. Not to steroype, but had some tilework done, black guy, and he was excellent.....Plus, this dude would work into the nite to finish. Sad thing is, it's an employers market today, but the privledged don't want to compete. It's easier to complain.
Not my fault thier man has created an enviroment where the privledged can't name thier price.
-
I want to respond to a couple of things in your post, Don, but right now I need a nap, so I'll do it later.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Take a nap.....Come back refreshed..... ::grouphug::
-
Okay, naptime over.
Wow.....We do not need to shut down LEGAL immigration. We do not need to make it easier and we do not need to legalize those here. Those who strive to come here legally are not the issue, they are part of the solution.
I disagree. We need to shut down legal immigration for a while except in selected cases, for the reason RickZ stated: we need to assimilate those whom we've allowed in but were permitted to enclave instead. We also get a lot of legal immigration through asylum, many of whom also do not assimilate, and we need to shut that off except in selected instances as well.
I believe if you'll consult John Florida about the rigamarole and run around with which those looking to legally emigrate have to deal, you may get a better perspective on the need to streamline and shorten the process. If the emigres are desirable -- and I believe it does not take ten years to figure that out -- then they should be allowed to get on with it.
Chain migration has to be stopped. Just because Pancho, Soong, Francois, Ramesh and Kim are desirables and a boon to us does not mean their parents, siblings, cousins, etc. are or will be as well; I don't give a rat's about "family reunification" as it is not for our benefit, it is for the immigrant's.
I'm not good at this...let me see if I can explain my point from the perspective of small business. I have many small business friends. We meet each month. Today, most use ( I'd state forced) some type of "foreign" labor, rarely used a decade ago, and you know what, they are hard workers and do a good job. There is a strong work ethic, but highly suseptable to the trappings of "free", frankly, just like everyone else. It's predictable they will vote democrat. The change I've witnessed over the last 20 years has not happened because my buddies are greedy bastages and want to make as much money as possible...... But because of an overabundance of taxation, regulation, gov't interference at every level.......so the unskilled "foreign" worker fills a need, not created for profits sake alone, but from the necessity to keep a business viable. In a world where small business profits are squeezed to the brink and you have a family to care for, that unskilled worker has become essential.... Since the 1980's, The United States of America has been creating this need. As long as a landscaper must buy 200.00 worth of permits for a 1000.00 dollar job, there will be illegal, unskilled labor.
I'm doing some remodeling of my business. The skilled aspects( plumbing, electrical) of what I need does not come from the "unskilled" crowd. Until we create a business friendly enviroment, at every level of gov't, we will continue to be overrun with illegals. We can enforce the borders, fine people, it won't matter.
Of course, it aint happening. I'd venture a guess the unskilled have no real interest to become a citizen. They are looking for work. They will take what free chit dems will give them and still show up at 6am and work til darkthirty. They leave an area when: 1) the work dries up...that's it. Now, the work may dry up because everyone will go out of business, but it would be much more effective if the guy who hires over half the population didn't feel the need to cut costs by hiring illegals.
Maybe not, but once they download their anchor babies, they get all the bennies and the bonus of citizenship for their offspring and none of the responsibilities.
I get the need for low-cost unskilled labor, but importing that, regardless of how hard they're willing to work is not the right thing to do -- not for them and not for us -- and it is my belief this particular issue needs to be viewed through a bigger lens than just what is allowing your business, or that of anyone else's, to be able to stay afloat as the pertinent point.
We have our own unskilled and skilled labor here and the laws need to change to allow these people to be hired and paid for the value they provide, no more and no less.
-
We have our own unskilled and skilled labor here and the laws need to change to allow these people to be hired and paid for the value they provide, no more and no less.
yes, but too many are being convinced they need to go to college
-
"Maybe not, but once they download their anchor babies, they get all the bennies and the bonus of citizenship for their offspring and none of the responsibilities."
Correct. This must be challenged and changed the freestuff and anchor babies this is the hook. If these two things were eliminated the "problem" would disappear.
"We have our own unskilled and skilled labor here and the laws need to change to allow these people to be hired and paid for the value they provide, no more and no less."
They will not work. They are privileged, either by birth, intellect, or government largesse and will. not. do. it. I have tried and tried and tried, they will walk away
from the opportunity. It's disgusting.
-
Challenging the anchor baby provision is raycisss. Actually, the term "anchor baby" is also raycisss.
-
"Maybe not, but once they download their anchor babies, they get all the bennies and the bonus of citizenship for their offspring and none of the responsibilities."
Correct. This must be challenged and changed the freestuff and anchor babies this is the hook. If these two things were eliminated the "problem" would disappear.
"We have our own unskilled and skilled labor here and the laws need to change to allow these people to be hired and paid for the value they provide, no more and no less."
They will not work. They are privileged, either by birth, intellect, or government largesse and will. not. do. it. I have tried and tried and tried, they will walk away
from the opportunity. It's disgusting.
I understand and agree; it's a problem everywhere. Americans were once willing to work as hard as they needed to, if not to prosper, then at least to eat. The handouts need to stop and then so will their attitude, and that includes the student loans for productively-useless college indoctrination.
Everywhere one looks, there are tangles of laws and regulations and government, government, government. Trying to untangle a single mess involves untangling multiples of others. This is the main reason why I throw up my hands and look for it to all burn down. Maybe -- MAYBE -- we can try it again and get it right-er next time.
-
Challenging the anchor baby provision is raycisss. Actually, the term "anchor baby" is also raycisss.
Yeah, I know. 'At's me, just a raycisss all over.
-
I understand and agree; it's a problem everywhere. Americans were once willing to work as hard as they needed to, if not to prosper, then at least to eat. The handouts need to stop and then so will their attitude, and that includes the student loans for productively-useless college indoctrination.
Everywhere one looks, there are tangles of laws and regulations and government, government, government. Trying to untangle a single mess involves untangling multiples of others. This is the main reason why I throw up my hands and look for it to all burn down. Maybe -- MAYBE -- we can try it again and get it right-er next time.
This is how pervasive it is. When I went to college, immediately after graduating high school, I applied for and received a student loan. It absolutely never occurred to me that it should be any other way. I did not at all think of it as any sort of government excess. It was simply what you did, what you were supposed to do. College was basically the 13th grade of school. My entire school experience to that point had repeatedly driven home that college was a virtual necessity. I thought nothing of applying for student aid. And I have never been a liberal, either. That's what we are up against. It is surely much worse for all the other young skulls full of mush entering the once-real world. They are almost literally incapable of understanding what could possibly be wrong with government programs for everything under the sun. It's honest to God going to be such an uphill battle that I don't think we can win it rhetorically. I think our only "victory" will be when it collapses under its own weight and we can hopefully whip the shell-shocked survivors into submission before someone else does.
I am still paying that loan, btw.
-
You know, I am Irish. People said the same things about the Irish when they came here.
Ah, no they didn't. That whole use of "Irish need not apply" signs that I've seen in movie scenes or read references to did not happen.
Challenging the anchor baby provision is raycisss. Actually, the term "anchor baby" is also raycisss.
Yeah, I know. 'At's me, just a raycisss all over.
You crack me up, Pan.
-
Okay, naptime over.
Wow.....We do not need to shut down LEGAL immigration. We do not need to make it easier and we do not need to legalize those here. Those who strive to come here legally are not the issue, they are part of the solution.
I disagree. We need to shut down legal immigration for a while except in selected cases, for the reason RickZ stated: we need to assimilate those whom we've allowed in but were permitted to enclave instead. We also get a lot of legal immigration through asylum, many of whom also do not assimilate, and we need to shut that off except in selected instances as well.
I believe if you'll consult John Florida about the rigamarole and run around with which those looking to legally emigrate have to deal, you may get a better perspective on the need to streamline and shorten the process. If the emigres are desirable -- and I believe it does not take ten years to figure that out -- then they should be allowed to get on with it.
Chain migration has to be stopped. Just because Pancho, Soong, Francois, Ramesh and Kim are desirables and a boon to us does not mean their parents, siblings, cousins, etc. are or will be as well; I don't give a rat's about "family reunification" as it is not for our benefit, it is for the immigrant's.
I'm not good at this...let me see if I can explain my point from the perspective of small business. I have many small business friends. We meet each month. Today, most use ( I'd state forced) some type of "foreign" labor, rarely used a decade ago, and you know what, they are hard workers and do a good job. There is a strong work ethic, but highly suseptable to the trappings of "free", frankly, just like everyone else. It's predictable they will vote democrat. The change I've witnessed over the last 20 years has not happened because my buddies are greedy bastages and want to make as much money as possible...... But because of an overabundance of taxation, regulation, gov't interference at every level.......so the unskilled "foreign" worker fills a need, not created for profits sake alone, but from the necessity to keep a business viable. In a world where small business profits are squeezed to the brink and you have a family to care for, that unskilled worker has become essential.... Since the 1980's, The United States of America has been creating this need. As long as a landscaper must buy 200.00 worth of permits for a 1000.00 dollar job, there will be illegal, unskilled labor.
I'm doing some remodeling of my business. The skilled aspects( plumbing, electrical) of what I need does not come from the "unskilled" crowd. Until we create a business friendly enviroment, at every level of gov't, we will continue to be overrun with illegals. We can enforce the borders, fine people, it won't matter.
Of course, it aint happening. I'd venture a guess the unskilled have no real interest to become a citizen. They are looking for work. They will take what free chit dems will give them and still show up at 6am and work til darkthirty. They leave an area when: 1) the work dries up...that's it. Now, the work may dry up because everyone will go out of business, but it would be much more effective if the guy who hires over half the population didn't feel the need to cut costs by hiring illegals.
Maybe not, but once they download their anchor babies, they get all the bennies and the bonus of citizenship for their offspring and none of the responsibilities.
I get the need for low-cost unskilled labor, but importing that, regardless of how hard they're willing to work is not the right thing to do -- not for them and not for us -- and it is my belief this particular issue needs to be viewed through a bigger lens than just what is allowing your business, or that of anyone else's, to be able to stay afloat as the pertinent point.
We have our own unskilled and skilled labor here and the laws need to change to allow these people to be hired and paid for the value they provide, no more and no less.
Ok.....those who came here legally are already assimilated for the simple fact it takes so dang long to become a citizen. Dropping your baby on our soil should not be recognized as citizens.......and chain migration can't be allowed to continue.
And I'm not in favor of importing unskilled labor...our tax and entitlement systems enhanced it. Before it became so difficult to do business as a small business, there were few Mexicans taking American jobs. Our unskilled American labor was working. They were also not on food stamps, at least not in the numbers of the last few years. Today, when a family of 4 can receive up to 60 k of assistance, the urgency of work isn't there.
If the tax situation became more palatable, it would be our citizens getting paid in cash instead of others. If entitlements were reduced or eliminated, our unskilled labor force would have the jobs.......and crossing the border wouldn't be so prevelant. The only ones left would be the Mexicans who vote for us.
Of course, it ain't gonna appen.
-
Wonder if poor misguided CC and others agree with this -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illegal-immigrant-kidney-transplant-20121209,0,3537821.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illegal-immigrant-kidney-transplant-20121209,0,3537821.story)
"Health care should be a human right, not a privilege." - Illegal immigrant donor recipient.
Yeah, human rights trump laws and constitutions dontchyaknow?!
::gaah:: ::cussing:: ::gaah::
-
If health care is a human right, then those who provide it are slaves.
-
If health care is a human right, then those who provide it are slaves.
It's the only conclusion you can draw. If it is said you have a right to a material good or service, then that means you are demanding a sovereign claim to the talent, time, and resources of those who produce those goods and services. Trying to deflect that conclusion by saying it merely means the government is obligated to compensate those providers on your behalf is to do nothing more than run off into the weeds. Because then the immediate question is, who gets to decide what that compensation will be? It ain't the producer of the service, that's for sure.
We really have an intellectually and philosophically shallow population. First order thinkers, as Thomas Sowell describes them. Not a one of them seems to have given any thought to what, really, is the nature of a "right". How can you have a right to something that can only be fulfilled by abrogating another person's own rights? Any serious thinker who is honest with themselves would recognize that rights are intangible things. They are statements about what cannot be taken from an individual, not what must be given to them.
We've really got an uphill battle on our hands here.
-
Challenging the anchor baby provision is raycisss. Actually, the term "anchor baby" is also raycisss.
Yeah, I know. 'At's me, just a raycisss all over.
Count me in.
-
Then the refrain should be ENFORCEMENT.
Then let the dems explain why we can't do that instead of the republicans always letting the dems lead the discussion.
Both want the same votes.
-
If health care is a human right, then those who provide it are slaves.
It's the only conclusion you can draw. If it is said you have a right to a material good or service, then that means you are demanding a sovereign claim to the talent, time, and resources of those who produce those goods and services. Trying to deflect that conclusion by saying it merely means the government is obligated to compensate those providers on your behalf is to do nothing more than run off into the weeds. Because then the immediate question is, who gets to decide what that compensation will be? It ain't the producer of the service, that's for sure.
We really have an intellectually and philosophically shallow population. First order thinkers, as Thomas Sowell describes them. Not a one of them seems to have given any thought to what, really, is the nature of a "right". How can you have a right to something that can only be fulfilled by abrogating another person's own rights? Any serious thinker who is honest with themselves would recognize that rights are intangible things. They are statements about what cannot be taken from an individual, not what must be given to them.
We've really got an uphill battle on our hands here.
It's not just a matter of how much compensation; more to the first point is who is to pay it because the government has no money but that which it mulcts from others.
-
If health care is a human right, then those who provide it are slaves.
It's the only conclusion you can draw. If it is said you have a right to a material good or service, then that means you are demanding a sovereign claim to the talent, time, and resources of those who produce those goods and services. Trying to deflect that conclusion by saying it merely means the government is obligated to compensate those providers on your behalf is to do nothing more than run off into the weeds. Because then the immediate question is, who gets to decide what that compensation will be? It ain't the producer of the service, that's for sure.
We really have an intellectually and philosophically shallow population. First order thinkers, as Thomas Sowell describes them. Not a one of them seems to have given any thought to what, really, is the nature of a "right". How can you have a right to something that can only be fulfilled by abrogating another person's own rights? Any serious thinker who is honest with themselves would recognize that rights are intangible things. They are statements about what cannot be taken from an individual, not what must be given to them.
We've really got an uphill battle on our hands here.
Simply put, the weight of the problem will collapse as soon as we take away our hands from propping it up. I have encountered all of these problems. I went to the unskilled labor in this country first and found nothing but drug addled, largely uneducated idiots that never appreciated the opportunity that work provides. Quality of work suffered immensely so the cost of call backs and corrections were simply to great. Since all were getting govt services in one form or another, they didn't care to work for the wage to skill set experience and I couldn't afford to pay them more for steadily getting worse skills. Finally, I subbed to immigrants legal or otherwise just to be able to get the work done. I ended up paying more for the labor but the quality came up proportionately so I stuck with it. I've discovered that most of them do have papers and some have obeyed the law and returned to their native countries. These folks have more desire to work than anyone that I've encountered in the indigenous population.
The skill sets in the native population absolutely suck worst than a milkshake through a paper straw and we all know where to lay the blame for that............... state run education. The fact that the localities continue to push through more expensive permits and overseeing operations because of the complaints from people that won't do their investigation before hiring a contractor for a particular service. The added weight of the bureaucracy still can't stop bad work from being done by shady contractors so all it did was to make it more expensive for the service.
One of the chief principles for the separation from Britain was to make it easier to conduct business and it worked for a century until politicians began to seek power by allowing citizens to feed from the public trough.
Sadly, the only way the system collapses is by tax revolt meaning stop paying the beast. The states will need to suffer this as well because like the Fed, they are bloated and anti-business in the same way. Better to fold up and place more weight upon the system so that it's down fall is hastened.