Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Libertarians favor an open borders too. Not that Jake isn't a tool, but... just sayin'.
Well, I'd love to hear anyone who defends letting all and sundry into this country without any stipulations plans to manage and pay for the millions what would immediatetly converge on our borders? Not to mention the total chaos that would ensue.
I don't think it would be total chaos. I also don't think we'd be able to pay for them all. They'd have to pay for themselves.
Well, I'd love to hear anyone who defends letting all and sundry into this country without any stipulations plans to manage and pay for the millions what would immediatetly converge on our borders? Not to mention the total chaos that would ensue.
I don't think it would be total chaos. I also don't think we'd be able to pay for them all. They'd have to pay for themselves.
And if they don't. what then? The left will scream that we can't expect them to just fend for themselves so we HAVE to provide what they need to live. And we'll then be in an even worse position than we are now, we'll be totally bankrupt and it will be worse than what took place in the 30's. It would result in chaos.
You never fail to meet my lower than dirt expectations of you, Jake!
You made a claim, and now refuse to provide evidence or back it up, it's just a simple post number, Jake! It's really not that hard!
So tell us all in your own words, what was her 'solution'? Let them all in and continue to let them all in? Open border. That's what I heard her say, but unforunately for both of you, that's only an acceptable solution to you reactionary far left wing loons, and you have no power today in American politics, thank heavens.
Please refer to Jake by his real name, Comrade Fakey.
You can have a welfare state OR you can have unlimited immigration. It just can't work to have both at once.
You made a claim, and now refuse to provide evidence or back it up, it's just a simple post number, Jake! It's really not that hard!
So tell us all in your own words, what was her 'solution'? Let them all in and continue to let them all in? Open border. That's what I heard her say, but unforunately for both of you, that's only an acceptable solution to you reactionary far left wing loons, and you have no power today in American politics, thank heavens.
Please refer to Jake by his real name, Comrade Fakey.
I always though it was FakeMalarkey - but Comrade Fakey will suffice
I am always on the right track for American when dblack and Newby disagree with me.
The juvenile remarking above about either or with terms like 'welfare state' or 'libertarian' or 'unlimited immigration' without wit for definition or context always amuses me.
On this OP issue, GW is correct and the far right and libertarian loons are merely honking in the swamp of ignorance.
I am always on the right track for American when dblack and Newby disagree with me.
The juvenile remarking above about either or with terms like 'welfare state' or 'libertarian' or 'unlimited immigration' without wit for definition or context always amuses me.
On this OP issue, GW is correct and the far right and libertarian loons are merely honking in the swamp of ignorance.
I simply referred to a matter of fact, that being the destructive chaos in Central America was initiated and directed by the Reagan Administration, not the Carter Administration or the Clinton Administration. So please don't assign a partisan motive to my comments because I am not partial to either wing of the bird which is our corrupt, increasingly plutocratic government.That is a very good question and I've read and heard about a dozen different answers to it, each of which appears structured around one partisan posture or another.Why did we spend over 2 TRILLION on Iraq?
I personally believe Bush was installed as President by a plutocratic shadow government which is determined to assume full control of this Nation by eliminating the powerful middle class by bankrupting it, which Bush quite obviously intended to do. One example being his literally tossing out cellophane-wrapped packages of hundred dollar bills to contractors in Iraq by the plane-load. Iraq was the major step in the direction of the task he was positioned to perform.
Bush was the obedient puppet of the One Percent -- his "base."
Bullshit. The democrats were for it before they were against it before they ran it. Both parties wanted these wars and both parties are continuing to keep us fighting in the ME. We've been there 13years now and we are not leaving, why is that?
You're being silly on several fronts, not the least of which is US involvement in Central America going back to even before Teddy Roosevelt separating Panama from Colombia to build the canal. Soviet involvement goes back to the Eisenhower era. Reagan, my ass!I simply referred to a matter of fact, that being the destructive chaos in Central America was initiated and directed by the Reagan Administration, not the Carter Administration or the Clinton Administrations. So please don't assign a partisan motive to my comments because I am not partial to either wing of the bird which is our corrupt, increasingly plutocratic government.That is a very good question and I've read and heard about a dozen different answers to it, each of which appears structured around one partisan posture or another.
I personally believe Bush was installed as President by a plutocratic shadow government which is determined to assume full control of this Nation by eliminating the powerful middle class by bankrupting it, which Bush quite obviously intended to do. One example being his literally tossing out cellophane-wrapped packages of hundred dollar bills to contractors in Iraq by the plane-load. Iraq was the major step in the direction of the task he was positioned to perform.
Bush was the obedient puppet of the One Percent -- his "base."
Bullshit. The democrats were for it before they were against it before they ran it. Both parties wanted these wars and both parties are continuing to keep us fighting in the ME. We've been there 13years now and we are not leaving, why is that?
Again, Ronald Reagan sent the CIA into Central America to methodically destabilize the governments of Honduras,, Guatemala, and El Salvador. That is a fact. It also is a fact that the supply side economics imposed on us by the plutocratic shadow government that pulled the puppet Reagan's strings is responsible for the ruin of our economy and our massive debt.
If you have some facts to report about Clinton or Bush you'll see no arguments from me. Provided they are verifiable facts, not partisan accusations.
I am always on the right track for American when dblack and Newby disagree with me.
The juvenile remarking above about either or with terms like 'welfare state' or 'libertarian' or 'unlimited immigration' without wit for definition or context always amuses me.
On this OP issue, GW is correct and the far right and libertarian loons are merely honking in the swamp of ignorance.
You're being silly on several fronts, not the least of which is US involvement in Central America going back to even before Teddy Roosevelt separating Panama from Colombia to build the canal. Soviet involvement goes back to the Eisenhower era.I simply referred to a matter of fact, that being the destructive chaos in Central America was initiated and directed by the Reagan Administration, not the Carter Administration or the Clinton Administrations. So please don't assign a partisan motive to my comments because I am not partial to either wing of the bird which is our corrupt, increasingly plutocratic government.Bullshit. The democrats were for it before they were against it before they ran it. Both parties wanted these wars and both parties are continuing to keep us fighting in the ME. We've been there 13years now and we are not leaving, why is that?
Again, Ronald Reagan sent the CIA into Central America to methodically destabilize the governments of Honduras,, Guatemala, and El Salvador. That is a fact. It also is a fact that the supply side economics imposed on us by the plutocratic shadow government that pulled the puppet Reagan's strings is responsible for the ruin of our economy and our massive debt.
If you have some facts to report about Clinton or Bush you'll see no arguments from me. Provided they are verifiable facts, not partisan accusations.
Your facts and observations are truly gobbledigook.
Precisely with these writings by noted Theological Religious Scholars.That is exactly right, Esmeralda, and thank you for the Scriptures that really drive the point home the way it should be.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13.
How do you want to square that one?
The method is quite obviously destruction of the middle class, so you're right on about that. But the objective is plutocratic rule, not socialism. Socialism is the diametric opposite of what the shadow government has planned for America. In fact, what America desperately needs is restoration of those socialist regulations which prevented the ravaging of our economy which has taken place since Reaganomics was imposed on us.You can have a welfare state OR you can have unlimited immigration. It just can't work to have both at once.
It depends on what the ulterior motive is . If the ultimate objective is to overload the system , destroy the middle class , eliminate the remnants of American affluence and leave America ripe for socialism -then yes you would certainly want to have both a welfare state and unlimited immigration.
What will we do with them you ask? Well, if it gets to be too much for you to do humanitarian aid you could always direct them to George W. Bush's large Texas home and property since it was he who signed the law in 2008 to allow them to come into this country and be processed while waiting for their day in court and final disposition.George Will never touched upon the looming issue of precedent. While it's true the U.S. could manage to shelter these 60,000 Central Americans, what do we do when the rest of the world gets the word that the U.S. is open to its oppressed populations?George Will lost his conservative roots years ago.. He's more Liberal than Conservative and has been for a long time.
There are young Africans who live under the constant threat of being raped, murdered, mutilated and/or enslaved. Millions of them. And while it is not commonly known, at least half the population of India is so impoverished they have no toilet facilities and routinely defecate in the streets. What do we do when these millions begin streaming in demanding amnesty under the Wilberforce Act?
We know the Wilberforce Act refers to victims of trafficking, but how do we know who are legitimate victims of trafficking and who are not? And the only way of determining this under the present circumstances is by processing each individual, an effort which, even if it were possible to make useful determinations in this way, which is isn't, would take years to process those we are dealing with now. So where do we keep them while this "processing" is going on?
And what will we do with all the Africans and Indians who are poised to follow these Central Americans if we submit to Obama's obvious plan?
Marginal Christianity: George Will stuns Fox panel: ?Preposterous? that U.S. can?t shelter child refugees from violence
-----------------------------------------
Ah Conservative George! Hate him or love him, he's certainly Right on this issue! KUDOS to him!
Besides his global warming denialism, he's a pragmatic conservative thinker.
There evidently is an obvious need to "close off" and "wall up" our society. While your comment is grounded in charitable goodness my question is, letting the flood of refugees enter and "work hard" -- at what? Where are the jobs?I don't think it would be total chaos. I also don't think we'd be able to pay for them all. They'd have to pay for themselves.
And if they don't. what then? The left will scream that we can't expect them to just fend for themselves so we HAVE to provide what they need to live. And we'll then be in an even worse position than we are now, we'll be totally bankrupt and it will be worse than what took place in the 30's. It would result in chaos.
It would result in facing reality and dealing with the contradictions of the welfare state. The alternative is to indulge the welfare state's need to close off our society, to wall up our nation as a 'gated community', and to kill off the flow of people yearning for freedom, who are eager to work hard to be a part of a free society.
That is exactly right, Esmeralda, and thank you for the Scriptures that really drive the point home the way it should be.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13.
How do you want to square that one?
