Good story til it turned into yet another tea party rant. You do realize if we dont get a handle on spending, we're gonna see taxes just like those countries people are fleeing, right? Try to see the big picture. We're headed that direction... which is exactly what 'taxed enough already' is all about. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Harry Reid yesterday: "Everybody is willing to pay more taxes." http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-everybody-willing-pay-more-taxes_764666.html
Your absolutely correct, during the 60’s when the civil rights movement was in full swing, race was up close and personal in everyone’s face and there was no running away from it. There were other times during the country’s history as well where race was a major factor in most morning kitchen table discussions, but let’s not kid ourselves. Never before has race or the issue of someone’s race (the president's) been so radioactive. Blacks are overwhelmingly proud, and most of the rest of the country is also overwhelming proud that we’ve been able to finally get past certain hurdles. But by having a black president there are also many that are past horrified over it and they’re agony is apparent in everything they do, say and in all of their actions. They are guilty of using the president's race as a means to stoke fear & paranoia in people as well as divide them. I wouldn’t label anybody who fits into your categories here automatically as a racist. (without knowing their background or personal attitudes towards people of color) That would be dishonest and disingenuous. Having said that, there “are” people that dislike many of the president’s policies based more because of the “president” than what he’s done. How can I say that? Most of what he’s done is nothing more than regurgitated republican ideas & platforms that the right has supported for years. (until now) Seriously Lil Mike the hypocrisy surrounding this president is truly astounding. You have house republicans who won’t even meet with the guy, accept his invitations to the Whitehouse or even have a beer with him. (and these are supposed to be educated, responsible, mature leaders?) Dude seriously………….. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book (The Tipping Point) on the "affect" that blacks have on most people. It’s a subconscious, negative, knee-jerk reaction when anything is discussed in connection with blacks. It’s; been scientifically documented my friend and it’s real. Whether you or anybody else wants to admit to it, there are people in our society who have been conditioned to just react negatively towards blacks or anything connected to blacks. Think about when Jimmy Kimmel went out and asked people if they liked “Obamacare” or “The ACA” and overwhelmingly people frowned and literally became ill when describing Obamacare as opposed to The ACA………………………….which is the same damn thing. Watch it here or you can YouTube it: http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...re-act-20131001,0,1174482.story#axzz2ijrG8D3C The reason why it’s hard to get a bead on me is because I am all over the map (as that’s my prerogative, and my right) Look, I’m like the president in that I have a white father and a mother of mixed heritage. When people look at me they have no idea what the hell I am because I “literally” look like every nationally there is (except for Asian) I am not a racist, but I also hate the history of this nation’s abuse on people. I love my country and I served in her military, but I hate the policies she enacted towards her brown children. I can separate all of these feelings & emotions and I've learned to compartmentalize all of it. I’ve supported Republican & Democrat presidents. I support food stamps, welfare and affirmative action but agree that all of them could use drastic overhauls. I take most people at their word that they are not rabid racist just because they disagree with some the president’s policies, but I also know racism when I see it and I’m not a fool. I’m all over the map because no human could possibly be that black & white about all issues. You want to fit me into some box that you’ve created that will make “you” feel comfortable, sorry but it doesn’t work that way. I have subtleties, nuances and moods. I evolve over time on certain issues and I do complete 180’s on others if someone makes a good argument that changes my mind. You can’t nail me down to anything Lil Mike, and instead of trying to “figure me out” based on some comments I’ve written here & there that may or may not contradict each other, how about you just accept what I write at face value at that moment and keep it moving? Who’s the real me………………………the “me” at that moment. Good point about the numbers and the statistics but also a tired one always made from the right because the bottom line is two wrongs don’t make a right, and while I respect you for wanting to fix the immigration issue for “all” people, many others could care less about all of the non-brown illegals in this country. Ahh, but "why" is their nationality a problem for me, because it’s a double standard, plain & simple. I travel for a living and I’ve circumnavigated this globe more times than I can count, and I personally know how they're smuggled in and through which ports. True there are less Europeans here illegally than Mexicans but the point I was trying to make in the post (that started our dialog) was the fact that Mexicans were here before any of us. They were wealthy, prosperous, decent, law abiding people living on “their land". The settlers came – saw everything they had – and decided they had been here long enough, and now it’s time for all of them to go. Here we are a few hundred years later and all Mexicans are being demonized while (I admit) the few Europeans that are here illegally are happily living life with no repercussions what-so-ever with nobody so much as looking for them or to get rid of them. Shameful……………….. Wrong, I have no problem with the U.S. government deporting criminals that illegally snuck in and have wreaked nothing but mayhem & havoc since they got here, but it needs to be fair, and as always is the case with this country’s history………………..it’s not.
Wtf... I've explained to you where Limbaugh was coming from. Those were Mexico's own immigration laws - not his idea on what should happen in America. I never said that immigrants shouldn't be able to vote, etc, you just don't know how to draw parallels. I've already explained my stance on this issue above. Did you ever think that possibly placing a ban on all immigration right now might be a course of action, because we've had so much illegal and legal immigration over the years that we've become overwhelmed? Immigration has been made into a politically divisive issue and everyone wants to use it to further their political career. How about we solve illegal immigration first, which I think a general consensus of the population would agree should be solved, then worry about our immigration policies? It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with common sense. You argue racism at every chance you get. It's rather tiring.
You have it backwards, you want to deal with illegals first and than deal with legal immigration, the main reason illegals come here is because its too hard and takes too long to become a legal citizen. If we could make the path to citizenship a more reasonable one than these illegal immigrants can become legal and live here the way they should, you just want to kick them out because you know the vast majority of them are Mexicans. You say these issues have been politicized, you forget that the issue itself is political and does need to be politicized because its political in its very nature. Immigration isnt just political because some liberals decided they want it to be, its political because it deals with politics so stop acting like everything is some liberal conspiracy. I argue racism so often because my main opponent is obviously conservatives, and by far the #1 issue I have with them is how inherently racist the political party is. You say I call racism everywhere I see it, but in turn you deny racism everywhere you see it. We are two opposites essentially, you say racism is not a major issue and I say it is. Knowing American history, its very clear racism is very much still a issue whereas you choose to deny it because its not affecting you, its affecting minorities so of course you are going to act like it doesnt exist and tell people to ignore it that much is obvious. As for Rush Limbaugh, you keep on saying those werent laws that he wanted they are just laws in Mexico, which im fully aware of but it does not mean just because they are Mexico's laws he does not agree with them, he even called them the "Limbaugh Laws" multiple times. I can show you a post of someone yesterday on this very forum saying "Well Japan is majority Japanese why cant we stay Majority white? Africa is majority African why cant we be stay majority white?" His reasoning for this not being racist is "Well is Africa racist for being mostly African?" I can show you the quotes this is really what he is saying and I asked if this is what he wants for american he said, "Absolutely". Of course im sure even you wont admit this is clear cut racism, he even said we should be able to practice forms of Apartheid because they do it in Africa. If you wont even admit this guy is racist than yes you do in fact deny blatant racism everywhere you see it trying to down play what a serious issue this is.
I haven't heard the Tea Party say we have the highest taxes in the world... I have heard the argument (and have used it numerous times) that we don't want to turn into a European country. There's nothing new to me in your post. Europe is a Socialist utopia (or at least as close as they've come to it). Obama and Democrats want to mimic that. Notice how they want to leave Europe for lower taxes... notice how many business people are leaving America for lower taxes. While we don't have the highest taxes in the world, there are still other countries, like New Zealand and Australia who do have more economic freedom. In fact, in terms of Economic Freedom (taxes, regulations, etc), America ranks #10 on the list. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius and Denmark rank #1-9. Why do you think there are so many people fleeing the country and renouncing their citizenship in record numbers? http://rt.com/usa/leaving-us-america-country-289/ http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-passports-jump-sixfold-as-tougher-rules-loom
You are literally the definition of Xenophobic. "having or showing an intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries." You fear people from other countries flooding America will cause us to lose our "American culture", just like every other xenophobic person out there. Also I love how when you use a example for immigrants coming to Japan you always name a country from the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing middle east lol, as if 10million Pakistani's and Iraqi's are really going to go to Japan. The reason you are doing this is because you are trying to play on peoples fear of Muslims and Middle Easterners. You think by letting 10 million Pakistani's/Iraqi's in Japan than it will cause terrorism and all of that. Also you seem to be forgetting that Japan has already lost much of its culture when the Americans invaded in WWII, even with their huge loss of culture they still hold on to the important pieces and thrive in their society. There is absolutely nothing wrong with merging cultures and accepting cultures from immigrants, we throw away the bad ones and keep the ones we like culture wise. For example for a long time America didnt like Christmas trees because its Pagan, but Europe used them for so long America finally caught on and it changed our culture towards Christmas, and no it did not even come close to destroying our culture it made it better and more accepting. The answer to your question is Japanese customs will remain in tact the same way American customs have remained in tact even though we are the nation of immigrants. The reason for this is when people move to another country they are influenced heavily by the culture of the new country they are in and begin to act much like them. If Japan lets more Koreans in their country or any other nationality they will be just fine and we will be fine if we let more Mexicans in our country. Just because you begin to let other people in from another country doesnt mean your border control quality goes down it actually goes up, its when people want to come to your country and you dont let them thats when you start getting flooded with illegal immigrants. Stop being a racist Xenophobic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).
Tell me Kevin, will you admit this Jack Napier guy is Xenophobic or are you even going to deny this guy is? Also more to the point of what you are saying, it looks to me like businesses go to whatever country sucks up to them and charges them the least amount of taxes. It has nothing to do with "freedom" its just about profits and whoever kisses their ass more. I think we should put minor embargoes on tax havens for threatening international economic stability intentionally just for a selfish benefit to themselves.
Nothing in the long conversation I had with this couple indicated that belgium was a socialized country, he told me he and his wife paid into social security and paid 10 grand a year for healthcare. I believe he said the poor gets free healthcare. Doesnt sound so much different than here. I do agree with you I dont want the US to be a european country, but they have their good points and we certainly have ours. Certain teaparty politicians absolutely claim taxs are way to high and the rich need a tax cut. Actually they ALL say that.
Yes, I want to deal with illegals first, because we have upwards of 10-30 million illegal immigrants (whatever number you want to believe) living in the United States, currently. Fix the problem. Build a wall - whatever kind of wall you want to make it. Learn from Israel's example. Then find and deport. If you came here illegally, you've been living here illegally. You broke one law, now you're breaking a ton. Once we've cleared the field of enemy combatants (illegal aliens), we can talk about loosening the noose on legal immigration. Right now I agree that legal immigration is a bureaucratic mess. It should be easy to apply, but it should not be easy to qualify. We should have strict standards for who we allow to come into the country, no matter where they're from. I don't think that should necessarily be based on education - but certainly skill sets. And I do think that one qualification should be that you speak/read enough English to be able to read/sign contracts. You sign a contract with America, you sign a contract with banks, you sign a contract with local/state/federal governments, and you sign contracts with businesses. We shouldn't have to cater to a million different languages, because you didn't feel it necessary to integrate into our American culture. We used to demand it... What I mean by politicizing immigration, is to use it to gain favor in political campaigns and to use it to influence constituents. Sure, we have an immigration policy, legislated by government, but you can still "politicize" it. You argue racism, because you want to see racism. You believe the Democratic mantra of "Conservatives are racist," despite probably not even knowing many Conservatives. You don't call racism where you see it... you call it where you want to see it. You manipulate everyone's words to appear racist, when in fact they're not at all. I clearly don't deny racism when I see it, because I've pointed it out while talking to you. You've called Conservatives racist and mention "white people" this and "white people" that, you even superimpose "white people" on opposing arguments, when it doesn't appear, because you want it to be there. For instance, this "Well Japan is majority Japanese why cant we stay Majority white? Africa is majority African why cant we be stay majority white?" never happened. You can review the past 5-6 pages and it doesn't appear. You can't see past the color of one's skin. As for Limbaugh... this argument is just stupid. He was making a point. He called them "The Limbaugh Laws," because he was fancifully proposing them for the United States. The obvious reaction to his statement should have and would have been "OMG, that's ridiculous! Who would want to pass such stringent immigration laws? We're just asking that the government enforce the immigration laws on the books." Meaning, we have some of the most lax immigration policies in the entire world. We just haven't any tolerance left for illegal immigrants coming here illegally.
Economic freedom is exactly that... freedom from government, in the form of less taxes, less regulation, etc. It has nothing to do with sucking up to businesses, it has everything to do with the want/need to encourage economic growth... governments might lax their market/business policies/laws to encourage businesses to move to their country and to aid in the growth of their economy - something we should be doing now. Why do you have such a negative view of corporations/business? They're run by people who just want to make it... That used to be the American Dream. Come to the United States, gain the opportunity to be who you want to be and make the best of yourself, without government restricting your options, and become as prosperous as you can/want. That's changed of late. Now it appears that the American Dream is to have a Nanny State, which gives you everything you need, so you don't have to take responsibility for it. As for Jack Napier? I don't know him well enough to decide if he's a xenophobe or not, but I can tell you that I agree with most everything he's said on this thread. The people who established their respective countries should have a say in their immigration policies and if they want to make it nearly impossible for anyone to immigrate to their nation, that's up to them. If they want open borders, that's also up to them. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race... it has everything to do with culture and what makes sense to them. I can tell you one thing, the Japanese people I've met aren't racist toward people of varying colors, yet they have very strict immigration policies.
It's parliament has a majority of Socialist representatives and has been led by the Socialist Party since 2011. Prior to that, they were passing many policies that are familiar to our own over the past 5yrs. Free healthcare is certainly a socialist policy, just as is social security. The Tea party doesn't fight for tax cuts for rich people... they fight for tax cuts for all people, and I agree with them that taxes are too high, just as spending is too high.
What we are seeing here is a simple case of logical thought v emotional thought. My position, and that of most others here is entirely logical, reasonable, fairly presented, and polite. Not only have we applied the basic premise to our own people and country, we have extended it to all people's and everywhere, that is to say, all countries should have a basic right to be mindful of their demographics and all countries should not desire to become a minority or a voiceless majority in their own country. Indeed, such a thing is surely the foundations of tyranny itself. I would assume the member that is liberal with the race card and "xenophobia" labels would have considered it unethical for blacks to be a voiceless majority in S Africa? Of course he would. Therefore, if the principle of a voiceless majority too afraid or unable to speak out against the social pressures or society as shaped by a minority of another race is wrong, then it remains wrong in all forms. Europeans are a voiceless majority in their own lands. Americans in their own lands. We have been rendered voiceless a number of ways. 1) Due to it being part of their apparently malevolent agenda, our Gov's simply refuse to reflect our arguments by way of policy. Indeed they have not only created the legislation to permit this to happen, they have been complicit in covering up crimes, and they have been complicit in creating org's like the SPLC, not to mention the thousand's of suspect "NGO's", all who work to ensure that the average man cannot make fair points about fair facts. 2) Your media are complicit in under reporting rapes and racially motivated attacks by ethnics. 3) Your law enforcement are often too afraid to act against ethics. However. I am open to persuasion. So here's your chance, all you "anti racists". Please explain why it is a good thing for our nation and society that our senior police officers admit that there is a culture of crime against law abiding native people, but they are too afraid to deal with it? Please demonstrate how knowing this but doing nothing about it helps society and all concerned. The Guardian: Racial murders Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office. The data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 there have been 58 murders where the police consider a racial element played a key part. Out of these, 24 have been where the murder victim was white. The disclosure will add to the intense debate over multiculturalism in British society. The figures also overturn the assumption that almost all racial murders are committed against ethnic minority victims .Senior police officers have admitted that 'political correctness and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported. One chief constable has claimed that white, working-class men are more alienated than the Muslim community. Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire and a spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was a fact that it was harder to get the media interested where murder victims were young white men. 'The political correctness and reluctance to discuss these things absolutely does play a factor, he said. 'A lot of police officers and other professions feel almost the best thing to do is try and avoid it for fear of being criticised. We probably have all got ourselves into a bit of state about this. 'The difficulty in the police service is that the whole thing is being closed down because we are all afraid of discussing any of it in case we say the wrong thing - and that is not healthy. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race
I really hope that doesn't become the case. Yet it's hard not to begin to draw that conclusion from some of the posts around here. Hopefully that opinion remains isolated to this forum (and Salon and MSNBC of course).
For many years I was familiar with a couple (via another online forum) who came to the US from the UK after the husband retired from the military. They came over on the E2 visa, which is kind of a entrepreneur visa. You have to invest a certain amount of money in a US business and hire American workers. They wanted to start a business and live in Florida and did so for many years. Then the financial crisis hit and they went bankrupt. Although they tried various routes via their immigration lawyer, they eventually were told they had to leave the country and they did. It's mind boggling to me that people who actually employed Americans get the boot with no chance of residence if they lose their business, but if you are in the US illegally you can break US law and much of the country wants to give you a "path to citizenship." Weird.
Starting with Reagan, the framework of my country was to throw the doors wide open to break the service workers and other unions. Reagan, 41, Clinton, 43, and John McCain ALL wanted Mexicans here and the rightwing and U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded their efforts to bring them in. Funny how frameworks change in such a short period of time.
As far as Jack Napier goes, I disagree with him on many issues, but you are conflating his opinions on immigration with xenophobia because he is coming from a different cultural context. If memory serves, he's a Brit, so immigration is a totally different issue in the UK and frankly the rest of the old world than it is in the US and many of the Western Hemisphere countries. In Europe for most of it's history, "immigration" was synonymous with barbarian types invading your land with pointy sticks, killing the men and raping the women. As an aside to that I follow the twitter feed of a geneticist who posts links related to the latest in the genetic research and just in the past two weeks he posted links to articles about successive waves of population replacement in Europe from the Neolithic era on. There were successive waves of one population group either eliminating or driving out the previous group over and over again. We can see that even in historical times. The population that inhabited North America a thousand years ago is totally different from the population that occupies it today. But the point is, the UK or the other European countries have never had the type of mass immigration policy that we have in the US. We like to say that we are a nation of immigrants. They don't say that in the UK. Their last group of mass immigrants were Norman invaders. These countries have specific national cultures and ethnic groups. The era of mass immigration, US style, only began after the end of WWII, and many are discovering that diversity isn't in fact their strength. So I'm not sure it's xenophobia when you come from a country with a distinct national character and also would like it to stay that way.
So basically the "you" that you've presented to me over the past 2 months or so is a fraud. As you say, your opinions are based on the emotion and whim of the moment, not through some detailed examination of public policy and the issues. So you are exactly like the vast majority of leftists I've debated with on this forum. I'll give you credit for holding it in for quite a while though. You had me going. Of course, I had hoped that you might be that elusive creature, the rational leftist, who is able to discuss intelligently and without rancor. Disappointing again. I don't get how you think European illegals are living the life of Riley in the US but Mexican ones are practically enslaved on the plantation. With the irony that we can't seem to keep Mexicans out of the plantation. They keep sneaking in. But, it's an argument that is of the typical leftist type. Irrational at it's core but by golly, it sure feels good and makes you feel smug!
I totally agree with you, the cost is even higher today for a 5 yr work visa, they sold everything they owned. As I was listening to their story, I thought how ridiculous and disgusting it is that illegals have been just running over our borders disprespecting american citizens property and then our politicians for the 3rd time on BOTH sides of the aisle AGAIN want to give them just a great big reward and just hand them whole enchilada for free and you have this couple paying through the nose and hoping thier business makes enough money to keep them afloat and allow them to save for the next big lump of cash they have to put down to stay her in 4 yrs. Its awfully expensive to obey our laws and become a legal immigrant. Its comparisons like this that should make liberals and conservatives alike shake their head in disbelief.
Heh, "the whole enchilada." The irony is the couple I knew were fairly liberal and would have been reliable Democratic voters if ever given the chance. As far as the illegals go, I understand the political reasons that politicians on both sides support unending amnesty, but I've yet to hear a good public policy reason for it. I just think that American residence and citizenship is actually worth something, and should be granted to people who are going to actually benefit the country, rather than merely demonstrate an ability to avoid the cops for several years.
All that successive Gov's, be it in the US or Europe have done are pass the baton of yet more second and third world immigration onto us. As I've said, no matter that they may appear to differ in the big theatre that is there for your distraction, all have broadly been determined to go on with this relentless programme. As you can see here, it is literally born from malevolence(people must stop thinking that those who have conspired to create this simply could not see the social problems).... ** 23 Oct 2009 The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote". Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001. The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. "Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a XXXX up but also a conspiracy. They were right. "This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage." The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true. "It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...K-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html Now, it goes without saying that not a single one of those above named will actually live beside a single one of the 3million that they conspired to bring in. It goes without saying that they won't be the one's that now must compete with them in the ever shrinking job or affordable housing market. It goes without saying that those they brought in won't place a financial burden on their healthcare plan, as it does to our NHS. It goes without saying that it is not they who fall victims to crime, social ills, perhaps even their wife or daughter being raped. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why it is good for Gov's to inflict unasked for policies of malice on the host nation, and I have yet to see a good reason why the general public should tolerate the social decay and other burdens that it clearly brings. Who does benefit? Don't be fooled into thinking it is about "cheap labour", because it's not all about that at all. Besides, not sure about the US but here we have a min wage that everyone must at least be paid, and an employer cannot cut below that, even if the immigrant offered. Besides, unless you have not noticed, they have been busy outsourcing work to China and India. Naturally the immigrants benefit. As much as we keep hearing the mawkish sob story, I would be willing to wager that even their most mediocre life is better than the culture that their own ancestors created. Were it not so, they would not be here, they would be there. Logical. Naturally, all the staffed groups and NGO's whose living depends on having more immigrants to make a case for, they benefit. Hardly a rational reason to let it go on, or form an immigration policy around. The political class benefit because the more different and mainly uneducated people you bring in, the harder it is for the host people to ever get a national consensus against the Gov or system itself. The weakens us and augments their status quo. Further, since many of the immigrants are from lands which our Gov's themselves bombed, the immigrants can often arrive with a grudge. Only they tend to let it manifest against an average person, and not the Gov here that bombed them. Pretty snide of our Gov to first anger them by bombing their own lands, then moving them to our inner cities.... It is a clear policy of spite against the host people. I see no reason to view it any other way.
