View Full Version : So what is your take on the Alt/New Right?
What is your take?
Update
So what path do you see the GOP taking, where would you like it to go?
I'd first ask what you define/see as being under the umbrella of that label (actual groups, persons, etc.), how you define their views (or rather, understand their views to be defined), etc. to make sure of what you are viewing as such.
I'd first ask what you define/see as being under the umbrella of that label (actual groups, persons, etc.), how you define their views (or rather, understand their views to be defined), etc. to make sure of what you are viewing as such.
Yes, this first.
Bailey Guns
12-16-2016, 07:50
alt right
noun
a) Liberal, leftist code for anyone who's not a liberal leftist
b) Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton
ex: "Alt right is a term applied to anyone on the political scale who holds beliefs to the right of Sean Penn and various other Hollywood elites or academics, and implies any such person is a hate-mongering homophobic, misogynistic, racist, deplorable human being."
When I hear that term I picture Breibart news and Milo Yianpoulous. But I am not sure what it actually means.
P.S.
Are you white? Do you love America? Do you believe in individual nation sovereignty?
You're a, wait for it...........
White Nationalist!!! Gasp!
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
68Charger
12-16-2016, 08:20
The left is so fond of labels... I say we bring back some oldies but goodies when referring to them... Assholes, perhaps?
ColoradoMinuteMan
12-16-2016, 08:38
In my opinion, Alt Right is a contrived term to put conservatives in a box and then assign common, negative beliefs and attitudes towards them. Liberals have tried for many years to make everyone believe that Republicans are all a bunch of homophobic, racist, bigots of one sort of another. Now that they have been saying it for so long that it has been disproven, they are embracing a new way of marketing it. Basically now they are saying "well this new fringe Alt right, who aren't even republicans have hijacked the Republican Party. These Alt right guys are the Skinheads, and unsavory people and people who believe in government destabilization. Republicans need to go out of their way and renounce these causes because if you don't, by default you believe in them and you are part of the Alt Right. " It's just a branding war against conservatism plain and simple. It's designed to continue the myth that most of the Republican and Libertarian parties are just a bunch of racist Skinheads, and convince those low information Republicans to be self haters, vote for spineless, ineffective, low energy, elitist, or liberal minded Republicans like John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Mitch McConnell. People who are happy just getting elected and voting on legislation across party lines, not introducing anything controversial, not resisting the liberal wave of activist legislation, and never try and advance a conservative agenda. They are scared of people like Cruz, Trump, Santorum, etc who actually have an agenda, who intend to pursue it, and who aren't looking to just be absorbed by the party collective and assume the position of subordinating to the elitists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JohnnyDrama
12-16-2016, 08:50
I think ColoradoMinuteMan nailed it.
The New/Alt Right are the conservatives who got tired of the pussycat Republicans who rolled over whenever the Leftists moved their agenda along.
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2016, 09:04
it's the lefts new moniker for those they disagree with. Since the RACIST / RACISM terms have failed them. As it did here in CO when they used WAR ON WOMAN in the Udall / Gardner contest
However. anything i hear or read from the Alt-Wrong i ignore as more futile ramblings of the weak.
Delfuego
12-16-2016, 09:51
Don't feed the trolls
I think ColoradoMinuteMan nailed it.
The New/Alt Right are the conservatives who got tired of the pussycat Republicans who rolled over whenever the Leftists moved their agenda along.
I agree.
it's the lefts new moniker for those they disagree with. Since the RACIST / RACISM terms have failed them. As it did here in CO when they used WAR ON WOMAN in the Udall / Gardner contest
However. anything i hear or read from the Alt-Wrong i ignore as more futile ramblings of the weak.
Alt-Wrong.. LOL I like it. Alt-Wrong = (D) and their worthless "feelz".
A label intended to distract conservatives from the final trashing of the US as Obama slinks around doing the most damage he can in the last month.
SamuraiCO
12-16-2016, 11:01
In my opinion, Alt Right is a contrived term to put conservatives in a box and then assign common, negative beliefs and attitudes towards them. Liberals have tried for many years to make everyone believe that Republicans are all a bunch of homophobic, racist, bigots of one sort of another. Now that they have been saying it for so long that it has been disproven, they are embracing a new way of marketing it. Basically now they are saying "well this new fringe Alt right, who aren't even republicans have hijacked the Republican Party. These Alt right guys are the Skinheads, and unsavory people and people who believe in government destabilization. Republicans need to go out of their way and renounce these causes penny default you believe in them and you are part of the Alt Right. " it's just a branding war against conservatism plain and simple. It's designed to continue the myth that most of he Republican and Libertarian party are just a bunch of racist Skinheads, and convince those low information Republicans to be self haters, vote for spineless, ineffective, low energy, elitist, or liberal minded Republicans like John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Mitch McConnell. People who are happy just getting elected and voting on legislation across party lines, not introducing anything controversial, not resisting the liberal wave of activist legislation, and never try and advance a conservative agenda. They are scared by people like Cruz, Trump, Santorum, etc who actually have an agenda, who intend to peruse it, and who aren't looking to just be absorbed by the party collective and assume the position of subordinating to the elitists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nailed it. Same rhetoric when the left referred to anything to do with the TEA party.
What "Alt-Right" folks are you all paying attention to? I asked OP to define and he has not done so.
It's kinda like saying, "What do you all think of Communists?" Well that's kind of a loaded question unless I define Communists and what I mean by that, cus some little snowflake who is in a commune and believes in community ownership is a far cry different from Mao.
I'd first ask what you define/see as being under the umbrella of that label (actual groups, persons, etc.), how you define their views (or rather, understand their views to be defined), etc. to make sure of what you are viewing as such.
Agreed. I've heard the term many times, but only from people/news sources that would not identify as "conservative" themselves.
spqrzilla
12-16-2016, 12:02
Like "Neo-Conservative", the term has become meaningless. It simply means "Someone I disagree with, even if I can't express why." It took months for Neo-Conservative to become so debased. It took about a week for "Alt-Right" to become so meaningless.
What is your take?
What is your take on "fake news?"
Don't bother answering. I don't care.
What "Alt-Right" folks are you all paying attention to? I asked OP to define and he has not done so.
It's kinda like saying, "What do you all think of Communists?" Well that's kind of a loaded question unless I define Communists and what I mean by that, cus some little snowflake who is in a commune and believes in community ownership is a far cry different from Mao.
Vox day is great, love his writings on immigration, Stefan molyneux has great vids, alot of podcasts are really funny to listen to.
More or less I see the Alt/new right as the future as the Neo Cons/Cucknservatives have done everything in their power to lose, not wield power when they win, and fear being called "racist" more then losing the nation, culture, freedoms they claim to value..
The Alt Right does not care one bit and it works so well, the left can only scream names, bring up facts, and a better vision of the future to the fence sitters/ and hell more and more of the white groups of the DNC.
If we restrict immigration like we did in 1924, build the wall/deport them all, end birth right ciztenship, along with Federal voter ID laws we can really turn the tide in our favor, something those cucks like McLame and Graham would rather die then support even if it means their party being unable to win any election again because of the left importing hordes of voters because "muh principles".
Neo Cons/Kempism is 50-60 years of proven failure...And its great to see they are being seen for what they are, fools and sellouts.
Like "Neo-Conservative", the term has become meaningless. It simply means "Someone I disagree with, even if I can't express why." It took months for Neo-Conservative to become so debased. It took about a week for "Alt-Right" to become so meaningless.
Wrong.
Neo consism has very well defined values.
Open Borders
Mass immigration
GDP over national security/culture
Imperialism
"Compromise" on major issues
Surrender on major issues before any debate has taken/place
Israel/Globalists First America last
It is ridiculous to constantly be defending ourselves from name calling when we did nothing wrong other that take the country back in the name of the constitution.
I think it’s time to start attaching labels to the left and putting the them in a single group moniker, like “Sore Loser’s”
You had me up until the Israel (Jews) part, when people talk about Israel they're talking about Jews. I support Israel and I want Trump to mend the rift that Obama has created with Israel.
I tend to look askance at people who think Jews are ruining this country or the planet. BTW globalists aren't for Israel, globalists want the Muslims to wipe Israel off the map. Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush are all globalists, perhaps Bush wants Israel to survive but most globalists do not.
The media portrays "alt right" as white supremicist, "white nationalist". I dont agree with that categorization. I think there are "fiscal" conservative folks that agree with some "liberal" social views. The national government has way over stepped its bounds on many social issues like womens rights (abortion), equal opportunity, etc. They have also overstepped on economic issues including free market interference, EPA, and health issues. I see the "alt right" as those of us that believe less national government is better. Less government is better, but lets not let the extreme right "religious" right rule our lives either.
Aloha_Shooter
12-16-2016, 22:49
Better Alt-Right than Always Wrong (i.e., Leftists, Communists, Socialist, Regressive Liberals, etc.).
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2016, 23:52
I believe the bottom line is.... Who cares what You Think. The strip clubs in lost wages kick you out, again.
DavieD55
12-17-2016, 00:43
Wrong.
Neo consism has very well defined values.
Open Borders
Mass immigration
GDP over national security/culture
Imperialism
"Compromise" on major issues
Surrender on major issues before any debate has taken/place
Israel/Globalists First America last
Yep. X2
It is ridiculous to constantly be defending ourselves from name calling when we did nothing wrong other that take the country back in the name of the constitution.
I think it’s time to start attaching labels to the left and putting the them in a single group moniker, like “Sore Loser’s”
Communists
Marxist
Anti White
Anti American
Traitor
They seemingly fit the bill on all accounts.
More over, the left will scream racist no matter what we do/or say, to them White people just existing is "racist".
You had me up until the Israel (Jews) part, when people talk about Israel they're talking about Jews. I support Israel and I want Trump to mend the rift that Obama has created with Israel.
I tend to look askance at people who think Jews are ruining this country or the planet. BTW globalists aren't for Israel, globalists want the Muslims to wipe Israel off the map. Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush are all globalists, perhaps Bush wants Israel to survive but most globalists do not.
Thank you for proving my point. You can criticize Israel, and no that does not make people anti Semitic.
Why are we in the Middle East at all?
Why is our foreign policy always focused on the benefit of other nations rather then our own?
Why is it that Israel can have the most restrictive immigration laws/border fences on Earth but the moment we talk about doing the Neo Cons who support such things for Israel always say "those are not our values", do not work, will not work and are some how "hateful, bigoted, "racist", etc?
Neo cons are proven failures, at best they just leftist who favor lower taxes, that is about it.
The media portrays "alt right" as white supremicist, "white nationalist". I dont agree with that categorization. I think there are "fiscal" conservative folks that agree with some "liberal" social views. The national government has way over stepped its bounds on many social issues like womens rights (abortion), equal opportunity, etc. They have also overstepped on economic issues including free market interference, EPA, and health issues. I see the "alt right" as those of us that believe less national government is better. Less government is better, but lets not let the extreme right "religious" right rule our lives either.
Aw the Religious Right, those morons, lets not care if we become a Latin American failed state, all that matters is "muh abortions, muh gay marriage, muh fill in the blank..." All those morons have done is burn political capital on non issues while major things that could help us like Immigration Reduction/Voter Protection Laws are forced on the back burns.....
Thank god these people have been force to the back of the bus.
spqrzilla
12-17-2016, 01:45
Wrong.
Neo consism has very well defined values.
Open Borders
Mass immigration
GDP over national security/culture
Imperialism
"Compromise" on major issues
Surrender on major issues before any debate has taken/place
Israel/Globalists First America last
Oh, horse manure. You just proved my point. Actual Neo-Conservatives had none of that in their policy positions at all.
Oh, horse manure. You just proved my point. Actual Neo-Conservatives had none of that in their policy positions at all.
And yet that is what they push.
Do you even know what a Neo Con is?
Reading this thread is like coming back from the dentist fully medicated. IS THIS REAL LIFE?
Reading this thread is like coming back from the dentist fully medicated. IS THIS REAL LIFE?
How so?
Thank you for proving my point. You can criticize Israel, and no that does not make people anti Semitic.
Why are we in the Middle East at all?
Why is our foreign policy always focused on the benefit of other nations rather then our own?
Why is it that Israel can have the most restrictive immigration laws/border fences on Earth but the moment we talk about doing the Neo Cons who support such things for Israel always say "those are not our values", do not work, will not work and are some how "hateful, bigoted, "racist", etc?
Neo cons are proven failures, at best they just leftist who favor lower taxes, that is about it.
I didn't prove any point, much less yours, in fact I strongly dispute your statement about the Jews.
Our foreign policy to going to change to a US-centric policy under Trump, if you want answers to why previous administrations placed other countries interests over our own just look at the Comintern from the 30s until the wall came down and the relationships between the Saudi royal family and the Bush, Clinton, and Obama presidencies.
Reading this thread is like coming back from the dentist fully medicated. IS THIS REAL LIFE?
I'd find it more interesting if the OP was a little more cohesive and well-written in his argument. Kinda hard to follow his points and he simply asserts them gratuitously with no backing argument or sources.
HBARleatherneck
12-17-2016, 08:44
I'd find it more interesting if the OP was a little more cohesive and well-written in his argument. Kinda hard to follow his points and he simply asserts them gratuitously with no backing argument or sources.
that wont happen, since he joined all he does is troll us. Never posts, goes a while then posts some stuff like this, all from another state. we have had threads closed over him.
This thread has inspired me to cancel my membership in the Alt Right (no, I was never a member but Clinton said I was).
I am now a member of the Cntrl+Alt+Delete.
Great-Kazoo
12-17-2016, 10:41
that wont happen, since he joined all he does is troll us. Never posts, goes a while then posts some stuff like this, all from another state. we have had threads closed over him.
Maybe he has this section confused with the Trading Post Forum
Aw the Religious Right, those morons, lets not care if we become a Latin American failed state, all that matters is "muh abortions, muh gay marriage, muh fill in the blank..." All those morons have done is burn political capital on non issues while major things that could help us like Immigration Reduction/Voter Protection Laws are forced on the back burns.....
Thank god these people have been force to the back of the bus.
Wrong. Trump would not have won but for the Religious Right. Or what you might have once called everyday, normal, well adjusted, decent, hardworking folk.
The state has no bigger mandate than of the preservation of the family unit, and the protection of the innocent. For without strong stable families as a foundation to formate good, moral citizens we will continue to have more of the same.
Children do not learn morals from the public education system.
The government does not provide it to them.
It comes from the family unit and churches.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
- Benjamin Rush
"The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence." - Noah Webster
" Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
- George Washington
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin
But perhaps you believe these are merely the musings of dead, old, white men and in no way could apply to such a group of advanced people as that of the United States. A people that seeks secure borders to protect us from foreigners that do us physical or economical harm, while sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of the un-born and promoting every form of deviant behavior as normal, and seek to eliminate the moral fabric of our country, the family unit.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Aloha_Shooter
12-17-2016, 18:19
[word] ^^^^
that wont happen, since he joined all he does is troll us. Never posts, goes a while then posts some stuff like this, all from another state. we have had threads closed over him.
So wrong, I have posted in many other places, on many other subjects.
Wrong. Trump would not have won but for the Religious Right. Or what you might have once called everyday, normal, well adjusted, decent, hardworking folk.
The state has no bigger mandate than of the preservation of the family unit, and the protection of the innocent. For without strong stable families as a foundation to formate good, moral citizens we will continue to have more of the same.
Children do not learn morals from the public education system.
The government does not provide it to them.
It comes from the family unit and churches.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
- Benjamin Rush
"The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence." - Noah Webster
" Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
- George Washington
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin
But perhaps you believe these are merely the musings of dead, old, white men and in no way could apply to such a group of advanced people as that of the United States. A people that seeks secure borders to protect us from foreigners that do us physical or economical harm, while sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of the un-born and promoting every form of deviant behavior as normal, and seek to eliminate the moral fabric of our country, the family unit.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Hey,no question with 90% of what you said, but when you waste political capital on non issues you might get a bashlash from other groups within the right.
Can you clarify what you consider non-issues in Molon's post?
Can you clarify what you consider non-issues in Molon's post?
Stem Cells (if you do not want it funded with tax payer dollars frame it as a spending issue, you will far more support)
Early term abortions
Now the issue of gay marriage (I hate what the court did and how they steam rolled us, but now short of stack the court its a waste of political capital when we could use it to harm the left)
Also the moronic support of and for wars in the Middle East, bring in 3rd world immigrants/refugees because the of some wrapped view based on self hatred/cuckholdury is something we could all do without.
We should have, and now are going to send our poltical capital to two major things 1. Limit Immigration and 2. Federal Voter ID Laws.
1. Limiting Immigration.
We take in more then 1.7 million people a year legally, of those number we have 800,000 green card holders, of those who go on to become citizens, they vote 8-2 for Democrats. A majority are on welfare, never mind the burdens of crime, wages, cost of living, terrorism, etc.
When you change the people of a nation, you change the culture, change the culture, you can and will change politics which is down stream from it.
Why allow the enemy to bring in reinforcements? If we restore Immigration limits along the 1924 Immigration Act limits we will insure that America never becomes a one party nation like the failed states of NY or CA.
Immigration is the issue that will decide all others, if we win it, we win everything else by default.
Factor in the wall, deportations (enforcing the law along with a few CEO getting a nice perp walk) (Targeted in swing states as to win over voters and get rid of illegals who voted (13% to those arrested admit they do)) ending birthright ciztenship for illegals (no we do not need to amend the 14th Amendment) we could not only stop the current imposed demographic shift in this nation, but reverse it in record time.
2. Federal Voter ID laws, we get this, leftist will be unable to allow illegals to vote (we have their info in the DMV so they will be going for a ride real soon!) no more double or triple voting, no more 50 voters who live in a empty lot, no more bussing of voters, no more "hey we just "found" some ballots", or "1% "bump" they always "find" in races that are down to the wire.
Why waste political capital on measures that do not yield permanent results? You can restore limits on abortion, pray in school, freedom of speech from the church, and all other desires of the Christian right in a nation that is solidly right of center.
You can not do that and will never gain anything you want if the left is allowed to import millions of welfare voters (and or mint 30 million via Amnesty). They will have stacked the deck so much in their favor that anything you want to stop, repeal, gain, etc is made impossible as they have changed the demographics of the nation.
Can you provide sources for any of the things you are claiming? Also, in what context are you claiming that California and New York are failed states? Larger economy than most of the world equals failure?
Can you provide sources for any of the things you are claiming? Also, in what context are you claiming that California and New York are failed states? Larger economy than most of the world equals failure?
Sure, if anything is left unanswered feel free to ask for more data, I have mountains of it.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/02/exclusive-usa-to-issue-more-green-cards-than-populations-of-iowa-new-hampshire-south-carolina-combined/
68429
68430
68431
They vote 8-2 for Democrats. (http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012)
http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012
Think your gun rights are safe?
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/image_thumb12.png
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/10/PH-2014-10-latino-voters-2014-midterm-election-02-02.png
Welfare usage 2016 study
http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households
13% of Illegals Admitting they voted (its so much more, but this is from self admission without fear of prison)
http://archive.is/iGZws
Their economies are large, but so is the state, the tax regulations, and countless infringements on our civil Liberties, infrastructure falling apart, schools they teach kids in every language BUT English, laws are selective enforced, the hordes of the 3rd world are given freedom to take, demand, demean, belittle, befoul, insult, and injury this nation if it means the welfare state gets more clients, the RINO scum gets more "cheap" labor, and marxist scum import more voters that will gladly vote away your rights and vote themselves your wealth.
No set rule of law
No set property protection measures (countless regulations, property tax, etc)
No set limits on the power of the state (One party rule thanks to NYC/LA etc and its sheer population/mass immigration)
No means of appealing any ruling as the judges are clearly activists on the bench
Ranpeat fraud in elections/voting
Infrastructure collapsing while tax income is wasted in special interests or flat out stolen
A never ending acclimation of debt.
All hallmarks of a failed state...
Also the moronic support of and for wars in the Middle East...
Curious point of contention on this matter- you think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11? What about intervention in Somalia during the humanitarian crisis/genocide? How do you feel about Clinton's inaction with Rwanda during a genocide? You sound, to a point, fairly libertarian in your foreign policy views, to wit I would believe that you support isolationism, correct? How did that work out in 1940/41? Do you not believe that those with the power and ability have a moral obligation to attempt to stop evil from happening? I would identify more strongly toward libertarian, with the exception of foreign policy. I honestly feel that we have an obligation to stop evil (ala 1940's Germany/Holocaust, Rwanda, and hitting back after we've been hit- see Operation Enduring Freedom).
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? We should have bombed the shit out of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh if tit for tat was the game.
Great-Kazoo
12-20-2016, 15:13
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? We should have bombed the shit out of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh if tit for tat was the game.
The House of Saud should have been leveled . Correct, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
Rucker61
12-20-2016, 15:17
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? We should have bombed the shit out of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh if tit for tat was the game.
What good would that have done?
What good would that have done?
More good that going into Afghanistan.
Curious point of contention on this matter- you think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11? What about intervention in Somalia during the humanitarian crisis/genocide? How do you feel about Clinton's inaction with Rwanda during a genocide? You sound, to a point, fairly libertarian in your foreign policy views, to wit I would believe that you support isolationism, correct? How did that work out in 1940/41? Do you not believe that those with the power and ability have a moral obligation to attempt to stop evil from happening? I would identify more strongly toward libertarian, with the exception of foreign policy. I honestly feel that we have an obligation to stop evil (ala 1940's Germany/Holocaust, Rwanda, and hitting back after we've been hit- see Operation Enduring Freedom).
Wars are never fought for ideals or patriotism. Only money.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Wars are never fought for ideals or patriotism. Only money.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Ive seen War Dogs too. ;)
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? We should have bombed the shit out of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh if tit for tat was the game.
The House of Saud should have been leveled . Correct, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
It isn't too late, they already live in the stone age so they won't miss much.
ColoradoMinuteMan
12-20-2016, 19:04
More good that going into Afghanistan.
I'm certainly not impressed where we've ended up in the war on terror or how we've handled the many aspects of this. I also was a serious critic of Bush. However, it's interesting hat it has come to light so many years later that the architect of the 9/11 actually credited the war in Afghanistan with being a contributing factor to no follow up attacks in the US following 9/11.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/11/29/khalid-sheik-mohammed-ferocity-swiftness-george-w-bushs-response-stunned-al-qaeda/amp/?client=safari
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
If people want to fight you, you can either let them pick the battlefield or you can choose it. Personally, I would always rather fight on someone else's homeland. The inevitable collateral damage is better as far away from my family as possible. Our nation is pretty good at projecting our power when we have the resolve to do so.
But make no mistake; there are people out there who want to fight us and they would choose to bring that fight into our homes.
I'm certainly not impressed where we've ended up in the war on terror or how we've handled the many aspects of this. I also was a serious critic of Bush. However, it's interesting hat it has come to light so many years later that the architect of the 9/11 actually credited the war in Afghanistan with being a contributing factor to no follow up attacks in the US following 9/11.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/11/29/khalid-sheik-mohammed-ferocity-swiftness-george-w-bushs-response-stunned-al-qaeda/amp/?client=safari
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
This is myopic because it still sees the entity of Al Qaeda as a phenomenon rather than an essential offshoot of Traditional Islam; Islam is the problem. Taking out Al Qaeda is like cutting a head off of Hydra. One has to go for the immortal head. In the context of Islam that would be Mecca, primarily. I'm unaware of anything in Islamic eschatology which would account for the complete destruction of Mecca. The 5 pillars of Islam include the Hajj. Take away Mecca, you take away a pillar of Islam, and Islam's immortal head is sealed in its wound by radioactive glass. It simply dies, because nothing in its confession accounts for such a thing to occur. It would be the same blow to Christianity if one were to discover, with beyond doubt proof, the body of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). Al Qaeda is largely passe now. But ISIS and its offshoots? More heads. But I just keep coming back to the thought of what would happen if Mecca became glass, Medina became glass, and Riyadh became glass. I'm not arguing for the wanton murder of millions, either. I say give them a week to vacate. And then blow the ever living crap out of it. No more Islam -- it would be metaphysically impossible for them to continue without their stupid little black rock they all circle around once a year.
Additionally, Afghanistan itself was a lost war from the beginning not because of Al Qaeda per se, but because Afghanistan cannot be had by outsiders. No one has pacified Afghanistan but the Afghans. Not Alexander the Great, Soviet Russia, and certainly not our feckless attempts.
Ive seen War Dogs too. ;)
I actually haven't.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I actually haven't.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
In the movie, they say thats all war is. If you say otherwise, youre either in on it or naive.
Stem Cells (if you do not want it funded with tax payer dollars frame it as a spending issue, you will far more support)
Early term abortions
Now the issue of gay marriage (I hate what the court did and how they steam rolled us, but now short of stack the court its a waste of political capital when we could use it to harm the left)
Also the moronic support of and for wars in the Middle East, bring in 3rd world immigrants/refugees because the of some wrapped view based on self hatred/cuckholdury is something we could all do without.
We should have, and now are going to send our poltical capital to two major things 1. Limit Immigration and 2. Federal Voter ID Laws.
1. Limiting Immigration.
We take in more then 1.7 million people a year legally, of those number we have 800,000 green card holders, of those who go on to become citizens, they vote 8-2 for Democrats. A majority are on welfare, never mind the burdens of crime, wages, cost of living, terrorism, etc.
When you change the people of a nation, you change the culture, change the culture, you can and will change politics which is down stream from it.
Why allow the enemy to bring in reinforcements? If we restore Immigration limits along the 1924 Immigration Act limits we will insure that America never becomes a one party nation like the failed states of NY or CA.
Immigration is the issue that will decide all others, if we win it, we win everything else by default.
Factor in the wall, deportations (enforcing the law along with a few CEO getting a nice perp walk) (Targeted in swing states as to win over voters and get rid of illegals who voted (13% to those arrested admit they do)) ending birthright ciztenship for illegals (no we do not need to amend the 14th Amendment) we could not only stop the current imposed demographic shift in this nation, but reverse it in record time.
2. Federal Voter ID laws, we get this, leftist will be unable to allow illegals to vote (we have their info in the DMV so they will be going for a ride real soon!) no more double or triple voting, no more 50 voters who live in a empty lot, no more bussing of voters, no more "hey we just "found" some ballots", or "1% "bump" they always "find" in races that are down to the wire.
Why waste political capital on measures that do not yield permanent results? You can restore limits on abortion, pray in school, freedom of speech from the church, and all other desires of the Christian right in a nation that is solidly right of center.
You can not do that and will never gain anything you want if the left is allowed to import millions of welfare voters (and or mint 30 million via Amnesty). They will have stacked the deck so much in their favor that anything you want to stop, repeal, gain, etc is made impossible as they have changed the demographics of the nation.
Sure, if anything is left unanswered feel free to ask for more data, I have mountains of it.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/02/exclusive-usa-to-issue-more-green-cards-than-populations-of-iowa-new-hampshire-south-carolina-combined/
68429
68430
68431
They vote 8-2 for Democrats. (http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012)
http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012
Think your gun rights are safe?
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/image_thumb12.png
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/10/PH-2014-10-latino-voters-2014-midterm-election-02-02.png
Welfare usage 2016 study
http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households
13% of Illegals Admitting they voted (its so much more, but this is from self admission without fear of prison)
http://archive.is/iGZws
Their economies are large, but so is the state, the tax regulations, and countless infringements on our civil Liberties, infrastructure falling apart, schools they teach kids in every language BUT English, laws are selective enforced, the hordes of the 3rd world are given freedom to take, demand, demean, belittle, befoul, insult, and injury this nation if it means the welfare state gets more clients, the RINO scum gets more "cheap" labor, and marxist scum import more voters that will gladly vote away your rights and vote themselves your wealth.
No set rule of law
No set property protection measures (countless regulations, property tax, etc)
No set limits on the power of the state (One party rule thanks to NYC/LA etc and its sheer population/mass immigration)
No means of appealing any ruling as the judges are clearly activists on the bench
Ranpeat fraud in elections/voting
Infrastructure collapsing while tax income is wasted in special interests or flat out stolen
A never ending acclimation of debt.
All hallmarks of a failed state...
I took some time to look through your sources. Most of what you're saying isn't even addressed by the source material you've provided (Blue), thus total bullshit conjecture on your part. The numbers specifically point to don't seem to add up for me either (Red). Your posts are so full of garbage that I can't realistically take the time to investigate each of your baseless projections (don't feed the trolls).
Let's start with what little you have provided.
The poll size of the first chart is between 1,200 and 2,400 people. While I understand how sample sets work, I'm skeptical of any data that claims to paint an accurate picture of a population by polling .0014 of the population.
The next two charts don't supply a sample size at all.
Here you are saying that immigrants vote 8-2 Democrat.
They vote 8-2 for Democrats. (http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012)
http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012
I read the study and did not see that figure anywhere. The closest I could find was this chart which shows a high of 7-3 for PARTY IDENTIFICATION, not actual voting of non-citizen immigrants (who mostly are not voting)
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/gimpel-realignmnent-t1.jpg/img]
This chart is accompanied by this preceding text:
But recent studies have indicated that the foreign-born, and particularly the large Latino immigrant populations, do not mimic the attitudinal and behavioral tendencies of natives. They have slightly lower participation rates, and they are more Democratic in their party identification and vote preference. Throughout the last decade, for instance, surveys large enough to represent the foreign-born population eligible to vote all showed an undeniably lopsided preference for the Democratic Party. The 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, conducted by YouGov, gauged the partisan preferences of over 2,900 naturalized immigrants, finding 62.5 percent to be Democratic identifiers, 24.6 percent Republican, and 12.9 percent independent (see Table 1).6 (http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012#6) Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney's percentage of the Latino vote, just 27 percent, was the lowest share for a Republican presidential candidate since 1996, the year Bob Dole lost badly to Bill Clinton (Lopez and Taylor 2012). In 2008, YouGov polled about 1,600 naturalized citizens and party loyalty also exhibited a lopsided bias: 55 percent Democratic, 31 percent Republican, and 14 percent independent. John McCain won an estimated 31 percent of the Latino vote that year — better than Romney, but not by much. Arguably, Republicans might do better if they nominated more Latino candidates, although that is not entirely clear given that ethnic solidarity is not strong enough to suppress partisan loyalty on anything like a consistent basis.
I've bolded a line in the text that says a survey large enough to represent the foreign-born population. They are talking about 2,829 (not quite the "over 2,900" they state) out of millions of citizens. I have a difficult time broad brush painting a group of people based on a fraction of the members. One thing not addressed, is that according to the poll in this study, the tendency of legal immigrants (ALL legal immigrants, not just Latinos) to affiliate with Democrats rose 7.5 percent between 2008 and 2012. However, the Latino population as a whole (according to this poll) only rose 6.3 percent during that time. That the non-citizen immigrant tendency to affiliate with the Democrats went down 10.2 percent in that same time period seems to have been wholly ignored.
The main point of this study, for those who aren't interested in reading the entire thing, is that for every 1% increase in immigrant population, Republican votes drops by .59%. They use this graph of voting percentage from 1980 to 2012 to make this point.
[IMG]http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/gimpel-realignmnent-f1.jpg
The conclusion of all this data is as follows:
Using standard statistical methods, this research has estimated the impact of the rising percentage of immigrants across U.S. counties on Republican presidential voting in the presidential elections from 1980 to 2012. The conclusion is inescapable. As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance. A typical drop in Republican support in a large metro area county is about six percentage points. In practical terms, an urban county that cast 49 percent of its vote for the Republican candidate in 1980 could be expected to drop to 43 percent by 2012, just as a consequence of a rising immigrant population.Across all U.S. counties, including the many smaller counties, the estimated effect of immigration is to drop Republican vote share about two percentage points. Even in seemingly remote locations with negligible immigrant populations, the effect is sufficient to move a 51 percent county to a 49 percent county. Aggregated over the large number of counties and viewed through the template of the Electoral College's winner-take-all system of elections, the impact of immigration is easily sufficient, by itself, to decide upcoming presidential elections.
I've bolded two sentences that I take issue with here. First, "The conclusion is inescapable" sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me. Second, my initial reaction is that it is a bit of a stretch to take that graph of the highest population counties growing more and more democratic over time and ultimately conclude that it is solely the result of an increasing immigrant population. The study says "even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance," which they explain means placing in controls for household median income and population of African Americans. Are we expected to fully buy into the idea that the only thing that has changed over the last 30 years is that there are more immigrants?
My conclusion? I don't see anything saying that immigrants that become citizens vote Democrat 8-2.
Next let's talk about your claim that 13% of illegal immigrants vote.
You said:
(Targeted in swing states as to win over voters and get rid of illegals who voted (13% to those arrested admit they do))
and
13% of Illegals Admitting they voted (its so much more, but this is from self admission without fear of prison)
http://archive.is/iGZws
Here are the first two paragraphs of the source you cited:
As we always knew, California and American elections are filled with fraud and corruption. Thanks to a new poll, we now know that approximately 13% of illegal aliens vote. Since they are already criminals, stealing ID’s or using phony ID’s. lie to get welfare, steal jobs—why not vote as they to lose. Since they can not be deported or jailed, they have nothing to lose. Obama is protecting these law breakers.
Could this be why real citizens don’t vote—the illegal aliens outvote them? Worse, in close elections illegal aliens can make the difference. Corruption? Look at the ballot box. In fact, they could have elected a President and Senator!
Right off the bat we can tell that this is biased garbage spouting off claims with zero supporting evidence. This article continues on and at some points states:
A poll (https://archive.is/o/iGZws/www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf) by John McLaughlin confirms again we may have a significant problem with non-citizens participating illegally in our elections. Based on a sample survey of 800 Hispanics in 2013, McLaughlin found that of foreign-born respondents who were registered voters, 13 percent admitted they were not United States citizens.
It says nothing about anyone who was arrested. What it actually says is that a guy sampled 800 Hispanics. Of those foreign-born that were registered to vote, we have no idea what that number is, 13% said they were not US citizens. Even if we assume that ALL 800 of the "Hispanics" surveyed were registered to vote, 13% of them comes to a grand total of 104 people. Let's not forget that the context of this article is that so many illegals are voting that they are swinging elections, AND that they outvote actual citizens! Compounding this information, provided by you, and your suggestion that it's a well know fact that "it's so much more" (completely not supported by you), I can only come to the conclusion that you are a troll of below average intelligence that hates Mexicans.
Great-Kazoo
12-20-2016, 22:30
Are we expected to fully buy into the idea that the only thing that has changed over the last 30 years is that there are more immigrants?
No, the reality is more people being promised free handouts. Will with out a doubt, vote for the ones doing the promising . Large urban areas prove that time and time again.
I was so caught up in trying to keep all that garbage some what readable that I forgot to ask the question of whether the bigger issue was more immigrants, or immigrants moving to large population centers, as the study does cite that larger population areas tend to lean more and more Democratic. It seems that adding people (from anywhere) to an already high population area only compounds the issue.
What good would that have done?
Two of the Five Pillars of Islam literally revolve around the black moon rock set into the corner of the Kaaba in the center of Mecca. After 1,400 unchanging years, Islam cannot simply erase two of its five pillars and continue with business as usual. Allahu Akbar means our god is greater. If Mecca were turned into a vast, glowing crater, this would be visibly untrue. When the Aztec and Inca man-gods were visibly thrown down by the Spanish conquistadors, those religions and social systems collapsed. If Mecca were to be destroyed, eliminating two of the five pillars, it’s an open question as to what would happen in and to the worldwide Muslim community. “We used to think our god was greater” won’t be an effective rallying cry.
The Five Pillars are: (1) Shahada (recitation of “There is no god but Allah, and You-Know-Who is his bestest prophet.”), (2) Salat (five-time-a-day prayer, facing Mecca), (3) Zakat (charity), (4) Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), (5) Hajj (making the pilgrimage to Mecca). So the two pillars referred to must be (2) and (5).
http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/11/tet-take-two-islams-2016-european-offensive/
Curious point of contention on this matter- you think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11? What about intervention in Somalia during the humanitarian crisis/genocide? How do you feel about Clinton's inaction with Rwanda during a genocide? You sound, to a point, fairly libertarian in your foreign policy views, to wit I would believe that you support isolationism, correct? How did that work out in 1940/41?
9/11 was caused by the actions of a guy who felt snubbed because America "protected" Saudi Arabia from Saddam instead of the Kingdom using a fellow Muslim, never mind us being in the Middle East, Funding Israel, etc.
I want us to be totally dis involved with the Middle East, All of it, Israel as well. We have no right to do so, we have no need to do, it does nothing but creates problems that cost us trillions of dollars, countless lives and the very Liberty this nation is founded.
That being said they attacked us, we should have bombed them back to the stone age (so we would be bombing them forward in time?) from the air and gone home, fuck rebuilding them.
Somalia? Total failure, we are not "Team America World Police!" (But I will say America Fuck Yeah!) we have people living in poverty here in America, why not help them? Never mind the fact it gave those morons cucks in the churches an excuse to import these people as "refugees" who require welfare until the die they die, commit massive amounts of crime, have active terror cells in America, and who gave us Al Franken (who was the 60th vote for Obamacare) (Their are alot of them in Minnesota because cucks/Churchian love to import poverty, crime, terrorism because "Muh feels and I fear being called names more then having my nation/rights stolen from me) SOB won by 300 votes (Refugees voting illegally, legally, and some felons (but the Russians hacking elections happen all the time, but voter fraud does not exist)
Rwanda? Do not care. Just proof Colonialism had its valid points and gun control will never work as people will just use something else.
Not waiting to play world police does not make you "Isolationist". And it worked O.K until the Japs went full retard, Charles Lindbergh warred that a war would result in the destruction of the Western World and would result in the spread of Marxism via cultural institution, was he wrong? No, he was damn right and it was a foolish war as was the 1st world war that lead by direct or non directly to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
Do you not believe that those with the power and ability have a moral obligation to attempt to stop evil from happening? I would identify more strongly toward libertarian, with the exception of foreign policy. I honestly feel that we have an obligation to stop evil (ala 1940's Germany/Holocaust, Rwanda, and hitting back after we've been hit- see Operation Enduring Freedom).
[/QUOTE]
Then you have an obligation to fight it yourself, on your dime. Their is always some "evil" that needs to be slayed. Maybe you should read your Washington, do not go out in search of dragons to slay, why? Because at best its a waste of money and lives because you going to "find" a dragon (while non exists) at worst you destroy what you claim to value (freedom, national sovereignty, your people) or you create dragons that destroy them for you (Taliban as an example)
Funny how the Holodamor or the evils of the USSR purges never come up, I wonder why?
As for Iraq.....Hey...How did that work out? Turns out you can not spread Democracy to some groups because they lack the cultural software/biological hardware to understand/value it.
Peter Theil summed it up best, we could have gone to the Moon/Mars, instead we went to the Middle East. Let savages be savages, so long as they are somewhere else.
If people want to fight you, you can either let them pick the battlefield or you can choose it. Personally, I would always rather fight on someone else's homeland. The inevitable collateral damage is better as far away from my family as possible. Our nation is pretty good at projecting our power when we have the resolve to do so.
But make no mistake; there are people out there who want to fight us and they would choose to bring that fight into our homes.
They have no Navy, No Air Force, just do not allow them to immigrate here and they will have no real means of harming us, and if they do get silly just drop a nuke a two. Anyone care to make the case on why we allow mass immigration at all in the current era?
I was so caught up in trying to keep all that garbage some what readable that I forgot to ask the question of whether the bigger issue was more immigrants, or immigrants moving to large population centers, as the study does cite that larger population areas tend to lean more and more Democratic. It seems that adding people (from anywhere) to an already high population area only compounds the issue.
I will respond the above post tomorrow. The bigger issue is more immigrants. If they are not here to begin with, what would it matter where they settle?
Yes it does compound the issue, like pouring gas on a fire. So why are you allowing the dems to import more welfare voters? Why not keep them out of the nation and avoid the issue and problems all together?
I know this has no bearing on who votes for who but I had a coworker whos wife was from the Phillipines. Well in October of 2008, she got a call that things got expedited and she got her citizenship. When she went to the ceremony, they said something along the lines of "Well you like America and democracy, right? Well that means youre a democrat so register to vote as one." . Its been a while so I probably have the wording wrong (yes i know were a republic). The point is, they guided her to register democrat. As someone new to the system, do you think theyll switch? Or stick with the side that they associate to their citizenship? Subtle things like that go a long way. 100% true story. I worked with him for 5 years in a small office so it wasnt just a guy in passing.
milwaukeeshaker
12-21-2016, 10:24
So then lets stop pussyfooting around and remove the shackles and kill a shitload of them with no rules of engagement as we did in WW2. Only then will the "war" end. You have to break their will to fight by killing massive numbers of them, their families, their "infrastructure", their mud huts, whatever. You ain't gonna change their ideaology. We have to make it so costly to them that like the Japanese they realize that they will be exterminated if the "war" continues.
If people want to fight you, you can either let them pick the battlefield or you can choose it. Personally, I would always rather fight on someone else's homeland. The inevitable collateral damage is better as far away from my family as possible. Our nation is pretty good at projecting our power when we have the resolve to do so.
But make no mistake; there are people out there who want to fight us and they would choose to bring that fight into our homes.
milwaukeeshaker
12-21-2016, 10:26
Have to disagree on the nukes, once you open that Pandora's box bad things will happen.
This is myopic because it still sees the entity of Al Qaeda as a phenomenon rather than an essential offshoot of Traditional Islam; Islam is the problem. Taking out Al Qaeda is like cutting a head off of Hydra. One has to go for the immortal head. In the context of Islam that would be Mecca, primarily. I'm unaware of anything in Islamic eschatology which would account for the complete destruction of Mecca. The 5 pillars of Islam include the Hajj. Take away Mecca, you take away a pillar of Islam, and Islam's immortal head is sealed in its wound by radioactive glass. It simply dies, because nothing in its confession accounts for such a thing to occur. It would be the same blow to Christianity if one were to discover, with beyond doubt proof, the body of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). Al Qaeda is largely passe now. But ISIS and its offshoots? More heads. But I just keep coming back to the thought of what would happen if Mecca became glass, Medina became glass, and Riyadh became glass. I'm not arguing for the wanton murder of millions, either. I say give them a week to vacate. And then blow the ever living crap out of it. No more Islam -- it would be metaphysically impossible for them to continue without their stupid little black rock they all circle around once a year.
Additionally, Afghanistan itself was a lost war from the beginning not because of Al Qaeda per se, but because Afghanistan cannot be had by outsiders. No one has pacified Afghanistan but the Afghans. Not Alexander the Great, Soviet Russia, and certainly not our feckless attempts.
Have to disagree on the nukes, once you open that Pandora's box bad things will happen.
you mean like breaking the will of the Japanese to make them realize they'll be exterminated if the "war" continues?
I propose a much more moral solution which gives full time to mitigate casualties and not engage in the wanton murder of civilians. However, the Med fleet unloading all their tomahawks, cruise, and whatever else missiles would be fine too, so long as Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh go away.
Riding the world of Mecca seems short sighted to me. You have a culture where a minority of people go off the deep end and want to make examples of themselves and their religion by engaging in terrorist acts. You take away the focus of that religion and now the majority of the people that were never going to be radicalized lose the very meaning of their life; and now, with nothing to live for, they're all looking at you. That's not a position in which I want to be, nor my kids.
Oh and to answer the question proposed by this thread in the first place...I think that anyone who takes a derogatory title bestowed upon them by their political opposite and wears it like a crown is not only a fool, but also a useful idiot that proves the very point which they fight so hard against.
ColoradoMinuteMan
12-21-2016, 10:59
This is myopic because it still sees the entity of Al Qaeda as a phenomenon rather than an essential offshoot of Traditional Islam; Islam is the problem. Taking out Al Qaeda is like cutting a head off of Hydra. One has to go for the immortal head. In the context of Islam that would be Mecca, primarily. I'm unaware of anything in Islamic eschatology which would account for the complete destruction of Mecca. The 5 pillars of Islam include the Hajj. Take away Mecca, you take away a pillar of Islam, and Islam's immortal head is sealed in its wound by radioactive glass. It simply dies, because nothing in its confession accounts for such a thing to occur. It would be the same blow to Christianity if one were to discover, with beyond doubt proof, the body of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). Al Qaeda is largely passe now. But ISIS and its offshoots? More heads. But I just keep coming back to the thought of what would happen if Mecca became glass, Medina became glass, and Riyadh became glass. I'm not arguing for the wanton murder of millions, either. I say give them a week to vacate. And then blow the ever living crap out of it. No more Islam -- it would be metaphysically impossible for them to continue without their stupid little black rock they all circle around once a year.
Additionally, Afghanistan itself was a lost war from the beginning not because of Al Qaeda per se, but because Afghanistan cannot be had by outsiders. No one has pacified Afghanistan but the Afghans. Not Alexander the Great, Soviet Russia, and certainly not our feckless attempts.
I don't agree with your assessment. Destroying a Mecca will not eradicate irradiate Islam, render it's extremists any less motivated, or make America any safer in the long term. You make several comments about Al Quest being passed however my point of discussion was in reference to the past, and how despite several comments in the thread saying that there was no point in engaging in combat in Afghanistan and rebutting that with the words of someone who had the means, motive and experience in attacking the United States. A person who has indicated that the United States response to the 9/11 attacks did indeed help prevent subsequent attacks.
Islam is not a place and it cannot be destroyed. What is required is being forever vigilant and following Israel's focused approach to maintaining it borders and transportation systems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
Oh and to answer the question proposed by this thread in the first place...I think that anyone who takes a derogatory title bestowed upon them by their political opposite and wears it like a crown is not only a fool, but also a useful idiot that proves the very point which they fight so hard against.
You mean like this?
https://howiecarrshow-3fhssrl128pflr.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DEPLORABLE-T-SHIRT.png
You're not the first person to pose that question to me. Let me think about it, but I think the answer is "Yes, just like that."
Great-Kazoo
12-21-2016, 13:34
You're not the first person to pose that question to me. Let me think about it, but I think the answer is "Yes, just like that."
On that subject... I did a bumper sticker up that said
PATRIOTISM.................More than just a bumper sticker
milwaukeeshaker
12-21-2016, 13:47
There is a difference, WW2 was a real declared war NOT a police action, and we were the only one at the time possessing nukes. Now if you use nukes, they may come in retaliation from several places and that would not be a good scenario for any one on this planet. F..k the civilians, we did not worry about them before, why now? You want to break the will of your enemy to fight, then you cause him and all he holds dear great harm.
you mean like breaking the will of the Japanese to make them realize they'll be exterminated if the "war" continues?
I propose a much more moral solution which gives full time to mitigate casualties and not engage in the wanton murder of civilians. However, the Med fleet unloading all their tomahawks, cruise, and whatever else missiles would be fine too, so long as Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh go away.
I don't agree with your assessment. Destroying a Mecca will not eradicate irradiate Islam, render it's extremists any less motivated, or make America any safer in the long term. You make several comments about Al Quest being passed however my point of discussion was in reference to the past, and how despite several comments in the thread saying that there was no point in engaging in combat in Afghanistan and rebutting that with the words of someone who had the means, motive and experience in attacking the United States. A person who has indicated that the United States response to the 9/11 attacks did indeed help prevent subsequent attacks.
Islam is not a place and it cannot be destroyed. What is required is being forever vigilant and following Israel's focused approach to maintaining it borders and transportation systems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
You don't understand Islam. There is no Islam without the Hajj, and without Mecca as Mecca (GPS coordinates are not what they care about). Afghanistan was of no point because it didn't address the problem: Islam. It addressed a momentary symptom in time of Islam: Al Qaeda. As I said, it's myopic. It's not like Buddhism or Christianity, etc. It's entirely carnal and needs a physical location as part and parcel to its very raison d'etre and its ethos on how to be a good Muslim -- destroy that, and you destroy Islam, pure and simple.
There is a difference, WW2 was a real declared war NOT a police action, and we were the only one at the time possessing nukes. Now if you use nukes, they may come in retaliation from several places and that would not be a good scenario for any one on this planet. F..k the civilians, we did not worry about them before, why now? You want to break the will of your enemy to fight, then you cause him and all he holds dear great harm.
What friggin world do you live in? This isn't a real war? Our enemy sure as shit thinks it is.
All who would respond with nukes would be Islamic entities which would be pointless once they realize their little 1400 year old BS is over with.
Our actions in Japan were reprehensible and immoral, and a war crime, frankly.
Riding the world of Mecca seems short sighted to me. You have a culture where a minority of people go off the deep end and want to make examples of themselves and their religion by engaging in terrorist acts. You take away the focus of that religion and now the majority of the people that were never going to be radicalized lose the very meaning of their life; and now, with nothing to live for, they're all looking at you. That's not a position in which I want to be, nor my kids.
I'm ok with that, particularly given the satanic nature of Islam
ETA now that I have a moment:
Per sentence:
minority: This idea of violence and terrorism (as we now call it) not being endemic and foundational to Islam is historically untenable. They are to follow the example of Mohammed as laid out in the Quran and Hadith. Ergo, we find violence and terrorism as a method of disseminating the ideals of Islam and subjugating those who will not confess it (reserved to Christians and Jews who pay jizya and do not offend Islam -- does not count for non-Jews and non-Christians: they get the sword if they won't convert). Anyone not confessing this is a bad Muslim. The good Muslims are not a minority, as the majority express support for terroristic actions and the rule of Sharia.
Focus of Islam: The subjugation of the world to Islam. Their eschatology demands this, as they believe in the Mahdi who will subject the world to Islam and the return of Issa (Jesus) wherein he will break the cross, abolish jizya (because there's no need with everyone being Muslim) and kill all the pigs (sorry Texas, no more BBQ). Without Islam being tenable, they will either convert to Christianity en masse or otherwise shift direction. Their violence hinges on their belief in Islam, something untenable without Mecca.
For the chil'rens: Make no mistake, some generation will deal with this; my guess would be that Russia does something in the future (whether 5 months, years or decades, etc. is anyone's guess). The West has kicked the Islamic can down the road since at least the 1st Crusade being over and dealt with it til today; Byzantium had an opportunity to take out Mohammed and end it for good during his lifetime at least at Tabouk. Motard heard the Byzantine army would meet him there to fight so he took 30k soldiers as he heard Byzantium had 10k (note: military rule of 3). The Byzantine Army, being the Eastern wusses they were, skirted Tabouk in order not to fight. Charles Martel (Tours), Jan Sobieski (Vienna), Don Juan of Austria (Lepanto) all had to deal witht he consequence of Byzantium not stomping his ass when he was just a desert war lord. So now we run into the problem of the fallacy of antiquity legitimizing something which is substantially illegitimate (such as the present British Monarchy).
You're not the first person to pose that question to me. Let me think about it, but I think the answer is "Yes, just like that."
How would you feel about a custom made sports jersey with "Deplorable" on the back? ;)
I think the "deplorables" ran with it because they don't care what label you put on them. Call them purple people eaters and they're going to keep living their life the same way. It was more of a "Yup, I'm here for all to see" type deal. That whole sticks and stones thing so they made a joke out of it. Just my $.02.
milwaukeeshaker
12-21-2016, 17:29
I can't even respond to this in proper manner. So I will say nothing.
What friggin world do you live in? This isn't a real war? Our enemy sure as shit thinks it is.
All who would respond with nukes would be Islamic entities which would be pointless once they realize their little 1400 year old BS is over with.
Our actions in Japan were reprehensible and immoral, and a war crime, frankly.
How would you feel about a custom made sports jersey with "Deplorable" on the back? ;)
I think the "deplorables" ran with it because they don't care what label you put on them. Call them purple people eaters and they're going to keep living their life the same way. It was more of a "Yup, I'm here for all to see" type deal. That whole sticks and stones thing so they made a joke out of it. Just my $.02.
Is this a reference to that thread I started years ago on HAI? If so, you can add blue jeans to that outfit as well.
The Deplorables T-shirt is no different than the "Horrible Woman" t-shirts.
Is this a reference to that thread I started years ago on HAI? If so, you can add blue jeans to that outfit as well.
The Deplorables T-shirt is no different than the "Horrible Woman" t-shirts.
/me taps his nose. :)
I avoid most political t shirts/stickers in public because its a headache I don't want to deal with.
I took some time to look through your sources. Most of what you're saying isn't even addressed by the source material you've provided (Blue), thus total bullshit conjecture on your part. The numbers specifically point to don't seem to add up for me either (Red). Your posts are so full of garbage that I can't realistically take the time to investigate each of your baseless projections (don't feed the trolls).
Let's start with what little you have provided.
The poll size of the first chart is between 1,200 and 2,400 people. While I understand how sample sets work, I'm skeptical of any data that claims to paint an accurate picture of a population by polling .0014 of the population.
The next two charts don't supply a sample size at all.
Here you are saying that immigrants vote 8-2 Democrat.
I read the study and did not see that figure anywhere. The closest I could find was this chart which shows a high of 7-3 for PARTY IDENTIFICATION, not actual voting of non-citizen immigrants (who mostly are not voting)
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/gimpel-realignmnent-t1.jpg/img]
This chart is accompanied by this preceding text:
I've bolded a line in the text that says a survey large enough to represent the foreign-born population. They are talking about 2,829 (not quite the "over 2,900" they state) out of millions of citizens. I have a difficult time broad brush painting a group of people based on a fraction of the members. One thing not addressed, is that according to the poll in this study, the tendency of legal immigrants (ALL legal immigrants, not just Latinos) to affiliate with Democrats rose 7.5 percent between 2008 and 2012. However, the Latino population as a whole (according to this poll) only rose 6.3 percent during that time. That the non-citizen immigrant tendency to affiliate with the Democrats went down 10.2 percent in that same time period seems to have been wholly ignored.
The main point of this study, for those who aren't interested in reading the entire thing, is that for every 1% increase in immigrant population, Republican votes drops by .59%. They use this graph of voting percentage from 1980 to 2012 to make this point.
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/gimpel-realignmnent-f1.jpg
The conclusion of all this data is as follows:
I've bolded two sentences that I take issue with here. First, "The conclusion is inescapable" sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me. Second, my initial reaction is that it is a bit of a stretch to take that graph of the highest population counties growing more and more democratic over time and ultimately conclude that it is solely the result of an increasing immigrant population. The study says "even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance," which they explain means placing in controls for household median income and population of African Americans. Are we expected to fully buy into the idea that the only thing that has changed over the last 30 years is that there are more immigrants?
My conclusion? I don't see anything saying that immigrants that become citizens vote Democrat 8-2.
Next let's talk about your claim that 13% of illegal immigrants vote.
You said:
and
Here are the first two paragraphs of the source you cited:
Right off the bat we can tell that this is biased garbage spouting off claims with zero supporting evidence. This article continues on and at some points states:
It says nothing about anyone who was arrested. What it actually says is that a guy sampled 800 Hispanics. Of those foreign-born that were registered to vote, we have no idea what that number is, 13% said they were not US citizens. Even if we assume that ALL 800 of the "Hispanics" surveyed were registered to vote, 13% of them comes to a grand total of 104 people. Let's not forget that the context of this article is that so many illegals are voting that they are swinging elections, AND that they outvote actual citizens! Compounding this information, provided by you, and your suggestion that it's a well know fact that "it's so much more" (completely not supported by you), I can only come to the conclusion that you are a troll of below average intelligence that hates Mexicans.
never mind the burdens of crime,
Crime
Per the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-187), “as of fiscal 2009, the total alien – non-U.S.-citizen – population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status.”
Since the population of the U.S. was about 306.8 million in 2009, non-citizens comprised 8.25% of the population and illegal aliens about 3.52%. (Recall that they represented 25% of the federal prison population then, and almost 39% in 2013.)
How many crimes did they commit? Almost three million. Here they are.
[IMG]http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2015-07/194962_5_.jpg
Let’s take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.
By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_r ate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls) for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.
Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.
Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.
25-50% of gang members are illegal aliens. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime (https://anon.to/?http%3A%2F%2Fcis.org%2FImmigrantCrime)
1 in four inmates in American federal prison is a non-citizen. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime (https://anon.to/?http%3A%2F%2Fcis.org%2FImmigrantCrime)
wages, cost of living, terrorism, etc.
Wages?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/illegal_immigration_and_the_wage_gap.html
Cost of living?
When ever you add more people, it drives up the cost of anything as their is an increase in demand for it, housing, utilities, higher taxes as their is a need for more police, teachers for schools, welfare, etc.
Never mind the higher and higher cost of living in a "good neighborhoods"
Terrorism? Well if we had the 1924 limits on Immigration none of the imported terrorists would have been allowed in.
580 people have been convicted of terrorism in the United States. An even more astonishing 380 of them were foreign-born, according to a release by the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/anatomy-terror-threat-files-shed-light-on-nature-extent-plots-in-us.html?intcmp=hpbt3)
The First World Trade Center Bomber Mahmud Abouhalima was given Amnesty in 1986 claiming to be a farm worker in the rich farm land of Manhattan!
Boston Bombers were let in as "refugees".
And who could forget the 9/11 Hijackers, let in on student visas (why do we even have those again?)
If we did not allow immigration from those nations, these people would not have been inside of our nation, acting against us and giving the Neo cons scum and the leftist enemies an excuse to limit our rights and freedoms.
Immigration is the issue that will decide all others, if we win it, we win everything else by default.
Well as stated above if we do not limit legal immigration, build the wall/deport them all/end birthright ciztenship Americans will be displaced/out voted by imported peoples because the Democrats are just cant seem to get enough Americans to vote for them.
Why do you think they changed immigration in 1965? They had to import 3rd world peasants who would just vote the same way for a welfare check. They do not even need to vote, just displace Americans as to cause them to leave an area/city/state (think CA, white flight writ large)
If we can stop the left (and the Neo Con whores) from stopping the influx, limit legal immigration along 1924 limits, along with deportation we will have a very secure future.
If we allow the demographics to be altars by our enemies, it will not matter how great our ideas/polices are, we will just be out voted, the left will have one party control on a federal level, and you can kiss everything you love goodbye.
ending birthright ciztenship for illegals
Very easy to do, Congress can just pass a law, you do not need to amendment. The Courts have ruled The Congress has the power to pass laws of naturalization as is their planry power under Article 1 Section 8.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/we-can-apply-14th-amendment-while-also-reforming-birthright-citizenship-john-c
The writer of the 14th Amendment never intended for it to apply to illegals, he said so himself.
http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies
Nothing to stop us from doing, the idea that "muh feels" and a bunch of sob stories means nothing to us, we are put OURselves first in our nation, this is a shift back to sanity, so it stands to reason that the left and their pets are upset when this happens, but their upset about everything as they are reality detached fools who get mad when reality/facts win out against "muh feels". They are going to riot, protest, that is about it, if they get "silly" well.....Well, it will not work out well for them.
I can only come to the conclusion that you are a troll of below average intelligence that hates Mexicans.
Says the man who has no facts, no links, no augments other then "your a racist!"
Notice how you did not bring up the welfare states, or the voting/political views graphs..I wonder why?
If you keep out enemy voters out of the nation, you keep the out of the voting booth by default and win! How great is that? Winning by default, no need to worry about others plotting/acting against us, their actions being used as an excuse to rob us of our rights, wealth, nation, and future?
Not work to secure what this nation is founded on to secure, "The Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity"?
I know this has no bearing on who votes for who but I had a coworker whos wife was from the Phillipines. Well in October of 2008, she got a call that things got expedited and she got her citizenship. When she went to the ceremony, they said something along the lines of "Well you like America and democracy, right? Well that means youre a democrat so register to vote as one." . Its been a while so I probably have the wording wrong (yes i know were a republic). The point is, they guided her to register democrat. As someone new to the system, do you think theyll switch? Or stick with the side that they associate to their citizenship? Subtle things like that go a long way. 100% true story. I worked with him for 5 years in a small office so it wasnt just a guy in passing.
"But Dave, America is a place for all people, with all view points because "diversity"..." Yeah this crap is going to end really soon.
Riding the world of Mecca seems short sighted to me. You have a culture where a minority of people go off the deep end and want to make examples of themselves and their religion by engaging in terrorist acts. You take away the focus of that religion and now the majority of the people that were never going to be radicalized lose the very meaning of their life; and now, with nothing to live for, they're all looking at you. That's not a position in which I want to be, nor my kids.
http://markhumphrys.com/Images/639.jpg
Oh and to answer the question proposed by this thread in the first place...I think that anyone who takes a derogatory title bestowed upon them by their political opposite and wears it like a crown is not only a fool, but also a useful idiot that proves the very point which they fight so hard against.
Do you even know the history of the Alternative right?
I know I've never heard of it until this election and I've only heard the phrase from liberal news sources. Please link me to what Pew.org has to say about it.
Wrong. Trump would not have won but for the Religious Right. Or what you might have once called everyday, normal, well adjusted, decent, hardworking folk.
The state has no bigger mandate than of the preservation of the family unit, and the protection of the innocent. For without strong stable families as a foundation to formate good, moral citizens we will continue to have more of the same.
Children do not learn morals from the public education system.
The government does not provide it to them.
It comes from the family unit and churches.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
- Benjamin Rush
"The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence." - Noah Webster
" Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
- George Washington
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin
But perhaps you believe these are merely the musings of dead, old, white men and in no way could apply to such a group of advanced people as that of the United States. A people that seeks secure borders to protect us from foreigners that do us physical or economical harm, while sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of the un-born and promoting every form of deviant behavior as normal, and seek to eliminate the moral fabric of our country, the family unit.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I like this post.
The original post; what do I think of the term? It just shows further division and polarization as we relive 1850s America. Hopefully, we won't push it and relive 1860s America. Too many people want to be right and force their will on others.
I know I've never heard of it until this election and I've only heard the phrase from liberal news sources. Please link me to what Pew.org has to say about it.
How about you learn about it YOURSELF? http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
I'm good. I don't have time to learn about every cyclical made up political party that no one will remember come the next election cycle.
I'm good. I don't have time to learn about every cyclical made up political party that no one will remember come the next election cycle.
So if you are not going to add anything, learn anything, why are you in this thread? You are not just reverse trolling?
Sorry, how can it be the "alt right" with it's the same old stale values from the last 30yrs? Alt means different, new, not the norm... How is this "Alt"?
Stupid people with stupid buzzwords.
So if you are not going to add anything, learn anything, why are you in this thread? You are not just reverse trolling?
Hello pot, this is kettle...
Give it a rest.
Sorry, how can it be the "alt right" with it's the same old stale values from the last 30yrs? Alt means different, new, not the norm... How is this "Alt"?
Stupid people with stupid buzzwords.
I think you are confusing the The New Right with Neo Cons/Religious Right.
Hello pot, this is kettle...
Give it a rest.
I started this thread to gauge the mood, you seem to add nothing and seem to be trolling.
I think you are confusing the The New Right with Neo Cons/Religious Right.
In all seriousness I thought that's what the "alt" label was intended to do; differentiate a group of dissenters (from Lib agenda) who are not primarily interested in social issues.
The Left's canned attacks are mostly identity politics/social issues so the "Alt Right" was a threat. It had to be labeled before Libs could marginalize it.
Ironically, the Libs succeeded in just putting more people in boxes and offending a lot of people who weren't used to getting that treatment. Imagine a fiscally conservative, Libertarian leaning, gay man who isn't comfortable with the Islamification of the US. He was packaged and marginalized because the Left wasn't open to him.
In all seriousness I thought that's what the "alt" label was intended to do; differentiate a group of dissenters (from Lib agenda) who are not primarily interested in social issues.
The Left's canned attacks are mostly identity politics/social issues so the "Alt Right" was a threat. It had to be labeled before Libs could marginalize it.
Ironically, the Libs succeeded in just putting more people in boxes and offending a lot of people who weren't used to getting that treatment. Imagine a fiscally conservative, Libertarian leaning, gay man who isn't comfortable with the Islamification of the US. He was packaged and marginalized because the Left wasn't open to him.
Without their sub human friends in the MSM and thanks to PC fatigue the left really can not marginalize anything/anyone expect to brain dead leftist (I repeat myself)
Of course, to the left, everyone has the same values, culture, etc and any proof to the contrary is "racism". If the cost of indulging their reality detached insanity is dead gays (like Orlando) or people raped and murdered by illegals, or our rights have to be stripped away in the name of "public safety" so be it.
If some people love their "diversity" so much why not move them to it and not move it here?
OneGuy67
12-22-2016, 12:32
Allegedly the person whom coined the term, "alt-right". Interviewed by JuJu Chang.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/asian-american-journalist-interview-white-nationalist/story?id=44091003&cid=clicksource_574_null_bsq_hed
Allegedly the person whom coined the term, "alt-right". Interviewed by JuJu Chang.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/asian-american-journalist-interview-white-nationalist/story?id=44091003&cid=clicksource_574_null_bsq_hed
Spencer did not coin the term so much as he made it popular.
So question to the thread what points do you agree with on the alt right?
Do you know what their points are?
Do you like the fact it has the phony right/left is this afraid of real opposition?
Spencer did not coin the term so much as he made it popular.
So question to the thread what points do you agree with on the alt right?
Do you know what their points are?
Do you like the fact it has the phony right/left is this afraid of real opposition?
I gotta be honest, for everything I've seen from those associating themselves with the so called alt-right, they typically espouse a sort of macho pseudo-conservatism which I find repugnant. Best I can tell, it's something which runs the gamut from people who are more in line with the Constitution Party but got caught up in the emotionalism of a "movement" to folks who, frankly, are nothing more than modern Nazis. The main players' seemingly anti-religion stance (seeing it as weak or not worth the time, etc.) isn't something I can get behind.
Reading this thread is like coming back from the dentist fully medicated. IS THIS REAL LIFE?
This^
I even read the Brietbart page the OP linked to, and it makes no more sense to me now than before.
Yes, I know this is not constructive comment, but I just don't understand the nuances between the labels on either side, and especially don't understand the need for the separate boxes to begin with.
And don't care to spend any more time attempting to figure it out. Political BS^10
carry-on OP. Hope you find your answer.
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? We should have bombed the shit out of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh if tit for tat was the game.
Sorry I'm a little late to the party- but seriously? What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? Short answer- Al Qaeda was responsible for the planning and execution of the attack, Al Qaeda was based in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan. Bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda was IN Afghanistan, and so we went after him. Did the Saudi Kingdom have some responsibility? Perhaps, but 15/19 hijackers being Saudi makes not the entire government responsible. We may have had a shaky relationship with the Saudis, but I hardly think the King and every single crown prince bears any blame for 9/11... Some princes, yes, as there are a few who are very anti-America and are in bed with the Wahabis.
ETA: on the subject of Alt-Right, I find it hilarious that they claim the alt-right is a bunch of homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist folk, and then turn around and say that Milo Yiannopolis is a key figure in the alt-right. A gay, Jewish man is homophobic and racist? Sense, it makes none.
Not defending the so-called "alt-right" but the left always takes their accusations too far.
If you want to know what the left is doing, they're doing what they accuse the right of doing.
If you want to know what the left is doing, they're doing what they accuse the right of doing.
Exactly.
I started this thread to gauge the mood, you seem to add nothing and seem to be trolling.
Yawn. BuhBuy snowflake. Ignore!
Great-Kazoo
12-22-2016, 22:15
I started this thread to gauge the mood, you seem to add nothing and seem to be trolling.
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M5c0c43f29dd9d3e3d5a5847a29076ee8o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=211&h=159
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M5c0c43f29dd9d3e3d5a5847a29076ee8o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=211&h=159
[ROFL2][ROFL3][ROFL1] Thanks GK, I needed a good laugh.
If you want to know what the left is doing, they're doing what they accuse the right of doing.
SJW always lie and always project, always-Vox Day.
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M5c0c43f29dd9d3e3d5a5847a29076ee8o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=211&h=159
I had to google that one man.....Good one.
This is why certain classes of immigrants succeed: the woman hasn't seen her sisters for 10 years and only took off 2 days during a time which would have been slow and sensible to be closed anyway:
http://i.imgur.com/BhpiMv7.jpg
This is why certain classes of immigrants succeed: the woman hasn't seen her sisters for 10 years and only took off 2 days during a time which would have been slow and sensible to be closed anyway:
http://i.imgur.com/BhpiMv7.jpg
Some can, but the problem is the left and the neo cons really do believe "we are all the same". That some how people with an IQ of 65 can make it in a nation/culture build by 100 IQ plus people.
But never mind the issues that mass immigration causes
Sorry I'm a little late to the party- but seriously? What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? Short answer- Al Qaeda was responsible for the planning and execution of the attack, Al Qaeda was based in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan. Bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda was IN Afghanistan, and so we went after him. Did the Saudi Kingdom have some responsibility? Perhaps, but 15/19 hijackers being Saudi makes not the entire government responsible. We may have had a shaky relationship with the Saudis, but I hardly think the King and every single crown prince bears any blame for 9/11... Some princes, yes, as there are a few who are very anti-America and are in bed with the Wahabis.
ETA: on the subject of Alt-Right, I find it hilarious that they claim the alt-right is a bunch of homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist folk, and then turn around and say that Milo Yiannopolis is a key figure in the alt-right. A gay, Jewish man is homophobic and racist? Sense, it makes none.
Not defending the so-called "alt-right" but the left always takes their accusations too far.
So... yeah...
Gitmo prisoner reveals that Saudi ‘terrorist rehab’ center is a scam
By Paul
Sperry November 28, 2016
Counterterrorism experts have long suspected
Saudi Arabia’s “rehabilitation” center for terrorists does a poor job of
de-radicalizing jihadists. But a Saudi detainee at Guantanamo Bay now reveals
it’s actually a recruiting and training factory for jihad.
According to
recently declassified documents, senior al Qaeda operative Ghassan Abdullah
al-Sharbi told a Gitmo parole board that the Saudi government has been
encouraging previously released prisoners to rejoin the jihad at its terrorist
reform school, officially known as the Prince Mohammed bin Naif Counseling and
Care Center.
The Obama administration has praised the effectiveness of
the Saudi rehab program — which uses “art therapy,” swimming, ping-pong,
PlayStation and soccer to de-radicalize terrorists — and conditioned the release
of dozens of Gitmo prisoners, including former Osama bin Laden bodyguards, on
their enrollment in the controversial program.
To date, 134 Saudi
detainees have been transferred to the Saudi reform camps in Riyadh and Jeddah.
Last year, nine Yemeni detainees were sent there, as well, and more are expected
to follow over the next two months, as Obama strives to meet his campaign goal
of closing Gitmo.
Al-Sharbi dropped a bombshell on the Gitmo parole board
at his hearing earlier this year, when he informed members that the Saudi
kingdom was playing them for suckers. “You guys want to send me back to Saudi
Arabia because you believe there is a de-radicalization program on the
surface.
True. You are 100% right, there is a strong — externally, a
strong — de-radicalization program,” al-Sharbi testified. “But make no mistake,
underneath there is a hidden radicalization program,” he added. “There is a very
hidden strong — way stronger in magnitude — broader in financing, in all
that.”
Al-Sharbi is one of the longest serving, and most unrepentant,
prisoners at Gitmo. A Saudi national with an electrical engineering degree from
King Fahd University, he attended a US flight school associated with two of the
9/11 hijackers. He traveled to Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 and trained at
an al Qaeda camp, building IEDs to use against allied forces.
Al-Sharbi
was captured March 28, 2002, at an al Qaeda safehouse in Faisalabad, Pakistan,
with senior al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. According to his US intel dossier, he
told interrogators that “the US got what it deserved from the terrorist attacks
on 9/11.”
Given a chance at parole after 14 years, however, Al-Sharbi was
surprisingly frank with the board.
He explained that Riyadh is actively
recruiting and training fighters to battle Iranian elements in neighboring Yemen
and Syria. Saudi views Shiite-controlled Iran as a regional threat to its
security.
“They’re launching more wars and the [United] States is backing
off from the region,” he said. “They’re poking their nose here and here and
there and they’re recruiting more jihadists, and they’ll tell you, ‘Okay, go
fight in Yemen. Go fight in Syria.’ ”
Al-Sharbi said the Saudis also are
“encouraging” former detainees “to fight their jihad in the
States.”
“It’s not like a past history,” he said. “It’s
increasing.”
A growing body of evidence backs up his claims. Last month,
for example, a Wikileaked e-mail from Hillary Clinton revealed, citing US
intelligence sources, that Saudi has provided “clandestine financial and
logistic support to” ISIS and other Sunni terrorist groups in the
region.
Al-Sharbi said the kingdom is playing a double game.
“They
will proudly tell you they will fight terrorism,” he said. “That means they will
support it.”
Al-Sharbi told the Gitmo board he doesn’t want to enroll in the
Saudi rehab program, because he would be used to “fight under the Saudi royal
cloak.”
“This is in the cause of a king. This is not a true jihad,” he
said. “And I’m not going to Saudi unless I am sure they’re not gonna be using
me.”
The Saudi rehab ruse has carried a lot of weight with the Gitmo
parole board. Earlier this year, it released “Saudi al Qaeda recruiter and
fighter” Muhammed Al Shumrani after his lawyers insisted that repatriating him
to Saudi Arabia and enrolling him in its “well-established reintegration
program” would cure his admittedly “problematic behavior.”
Rest of article:http://nypost.com/2016/11/28/gitmo-prisoner-reveals-that-saudi-terrorist-rehab-center-is-a-scam/
Hat tip to Divemaster at http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51777 as I basically copy/pasted his original post.
Some can, but the problem is the left and the neo cons really do believe "we are all the same". That some how people with an IQ of 65 can make it in a nation/culture build by 100 IQ plus people.
But never mind the issues that mass immigration causes
I'm not a fan of mass immigration, but of smart immigration (and that includes taking away the incentive of permanent immigration a la a reinstitution of the Bracero program). You're arguing one extreme against the other.
I'm not a fan of mass immigration, but of smart immigration (and that includes taking away the incentive of permanent immigration a la a reinstitution of the Bracero program). You're arguing one extreme against the other.
I want the US to pick the best-of-the-best when it comes to immigration. We don't need illiterate, disease-ridden peasants from any country.
I want the US to pick the best-of-the-best when it comes to immigration. We don't need illiterate, disease-ridden peasants from any country.
That's fine, but we need to remove our collective head from butt on education and push STEM hardcore before we do that. It's typically a good idea to clean up one's own house before inviting people to come in.
That's fine, but we need to remove our collective head from butt on education and push STEM hardcore before we do that. It's typically a good idea to clean up one's own house before inviting people to come in.
True!
I'm not a fan of mass immigration, but of smart immigration (and that includes taking away the incentive of permanent immigration a la a reinstitution of the Bracero program). You're arguing one extreme against the other.
Is that not what happens in life? The problem with such programs is they never just stay the way they are, the Bracero program did exist but sadly it was used as justification/brain child of H1b visa system. More over we already have millions of American teenagers, as for the "need" for farm workers? We have machines, force farmers to automate. Machines do not require welfare, do not burden the tax payers, commit crime or the worst crime of all Vote for leftist.
If we have to choice one extreme, let us choice the extreme that benefits us. Between the last 50 year open border, mass immigration from the 3rd world failure that has produced or exacerbated poverty, crime, disease, stagnated wages and exploding costs, terrorism, and the political/cultural baknaniztion.
Or
A proven track record of lower immigration such as between 1924-1965 that gave us wages that increased 90%, greater unity, a shared culture, language, cultural mores, less crime and terrorism (anarchist/marxist terrorist were rampant back then) fewer and fewer public charges/welfare cases, and if it was not ended by a political faction that could not win without importing voters would have resulted in a more united, prosperous, free America and people.
Its very clear which one is "extreme".
I want the US to pick the best-of-the-best when it comes to immigration. We don't need illiterate, disease-ridden peasants from any country.
How else are Democrat going to get voters, cucks going to signal?
That's fine, but we need to remove our collective head from butt on education and push STEM hardcore before we do that. It's typically a good idea to clean up one's own house before inviting people to come in.
Without Question, make colleges teach not spew cultural marxist lies...But we have loads of STEM workers looking for work, the idea that their is a shortage is a total lie pushed by Tech Giants who want more and more "cheap" labor. We need to end H1b visa system.
Wealthy foreigners want to come with their money, start businesses, yeah allow them in, maybe give them citizenship if they meet a few requirements.
Allow in maybe the top 10% of the 10% of doctors, scientist, engineers, etc. After that? Close the door.
Let the left scream and cry themselves to death, This nation is for us, and if others do not like the idea that they can not move here their is nothing they can do about it.
And if that means we have to remove that unauthorized plaque on the Statue of Liberty, update a few history books and tell a bunch of fools with rose colored glasses they are fools, so be it.
We have a Golden Opportunity to secure our future, our nation, and the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, the meaning and reason for this nation`s creation, let us not squander it due to lies, myths, subversive groups both alien and native and sentimentalism.
My answers to your points in red...
9/11 was caused by the actions of a guy who felt snubbed because America "protected" Saudi Arabia from Saddam instead of the Kingdom using a fellow Muslim, never mind us being in the Middle East, Funding Israel, etc.
False, 9/11 was caused by someone who got pissed off because he saw western presence in the "holy land" as an affront. We have had long standing treaties and agreements with the Kingdom of Saud since the 1930's, and were asked by the King to protect Saudi lands from Saddam Insane. How OBL reacted is his problem, not ours.
I want us to be totally dis involved with the Middle East, All of it, Israel as well. We have no right to do so, we have no need to do, it does nothing but creates problems that cost us trillions of dollars, countless lives and the very Liberty this nation is founded.
We helped to create (or re-create) the modern state of Israel. We owe it to them to stand by our greatest and most beneficial (possibly only true) allies in the region.
That being said they attacked us, we should have bombed them back to the stone age (so we would be bombing them forward in time?) from the air and gone home, fuck rebuilding them.
Surgical and strategic bombing doesn't work without follow through. It would be like spraying for termites but failing to go after their nest.
Somalia? Total failure, we are not "Team America World Police!" (But I will say America Fuck Yeah!) we have people living in poverty here in America, why not help them? Never mind the fact it gave those morons cucks in the churches an excuse to import these people as "refugees" who require welfare until the die they die, commit massive amounts of crime, have active terror cells in America, and who gave us Al Franken (who was the 60th vote for Obamacare) (Their are alot of them in Minnesota because cucks/Churchian love to import poverty, crime, terrorism because "Muh feels and I fear being called names more then having my nation/rights stolen from me) SOB won by 300 votes (Refugees voting illegally, legally, and some felons (but the Russians hacking elections happen all the time, but voter fraud does not exist)
I agree that we should help those in need here. But at the time we were assisting a UN mission to bring food to people in Somalia during a humanitarian crisis that hadn't been seen in decades. When the Marines withdrew that's when the warlords targeted the peacekeepers. Somalia wasn't a failure, it was abandoned. We lose 28 troops and pansy Clinton withdrew instead of doubling our efforts and hitting harder.
Rwanda? Do not care. Just proof Colonialism had its valid points and gun control will never work as people will just use something else.
Rwanda was a genocide that killed at a rate 250X faster than Hitler did... Just let that go? There were armed Belgian and Canadian UN Troops there, able to stop it, and no one did anything. I believe Burke was very correct: "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." To that I would add, "can you call a man good if he does nothing in the face of evil?"
Not waiting to play world police does not make you "Isolationist". And it worked O.K until the Japs went full retard, Charles Lindbergh warred that a war would result in the destruction of the Western World and would result in the spread of Marxism via cultural institution, was he wrong? No, he was damn right and it was a foolish war as was the 1st world war that lead by direct or non directly to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
Then you have an obligation to fight it yourself, on your dime. Their is always some "evil" that needs to be slayed. Maybe you should read your Washington, do not go out in search of dragons to slay, why? Because at best its a waste of money and lives because you going to "find" a dragon (while non exists) at worst you destroy what you claim to value (freedom, national sovereignty, your people) or you create dragons that destroy them for you (Taliban as an example)
I read Washington, but you have to realize that he was around when we had no real power to act on foreign affairs. Morally he probably would have supported stopping evil if we had the means. And persisting a "dragon" doesn't exist, when it clearly does, and doing nothing about it until that dragon comes to your home (9/11) is only inviting disaster. I would rather root out the enemy before it has a chance to strike.
Funny how the Holodamor or the evils of the USSR purges never come up, I wonder why?
As for Iraq.....Hey...How did that work out? Turns out you can not spread Democracy to some groups because they lack the cultural software/biological hardware to understand/value it.
Iraq was done at a bad time, for justified reasons, but we should have finished the job in Afghanistan first. There is much contention over the presence or non-presence of WMDs in Iraq. Saddam had them, no question (don't believe me? Find a Kurd who was alive in 1993 and ask them), but we didn't have 100% containment of the Iraqi borders, thus he was able to get them out prior to the invasion (as an Iraqi general stated). Where do you think Assad got the chemical weapons he used against the rebels? I'm thinking he took the labels that said "made in Iraq" off before use.
Peter Theil summed it up best, we could have gone to the Moon/Mars, instead we went to the Middle East. Let savages be savages, so long as they are somewhere else.[/QUOTE]
As to everyone clamoring that we should obliterate Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh- you think we have a lot of Islamic problems now? Go ahead and destroy their holiest sites, and then you'll see a BILLION Muslims rally against the US and 9/11, San Bernardino, Paris, etc. will look like a freaking paddy cake game compared to the onslaught that would come our way.
My answers to your points in red...
Then you have an obligation to fight it yourself, on your dime. Their is always some "evil" that needs to be slayed. Maybe you should read your Washington, do not go out in search of dragons to slay, why? Because at best its a waste of money and lives because you going to "find" a dragon (while non exists) at worst you destroy what you claim to value (freedom, national sovereignty, your people) or you create dragons that destroy them for you (Taliban as an example)
I read Washington, but you have to realize that he was around when we had no real power to act on foreign affairs. Morally he probably would have supported stopping evil if we had the means. And persisting a "dragon" doesn't exist, when it clearly does, and doing nothing about it until that dragon comes to your home (9/11) is only inviting disaster. I would rather root out the enemy before it has a chance to strike.
Funny how the Holodamor or the evils of the USSR purges never come up, I wonder why?
As for Iraq.....Hey...How did that work out? Turns out you can not spread Democracy to some groups because they lack the cultural software/biological hardware to understand/value it.
Iraq was done at a bad time, for justified reasons, but we should have finished the job in Afghanistan first. There is much contention over the presence or non-presence of WMDs in Iraq. Saddam had them, no question (don't believe me? Find a Kurd who was alive in 1993 and ask them), but we didn't have 100% containment of the Iraqi borders, thus he was able to get them out prior to the invasion (as an Iraqi general stated). Where do you think Assad got the chemical weapons he used against the rebels? I'm thinking he took the labels that said "made in Iraq" off before use.
Peter Theil summed it up best, we could have gone to the Moon/Mars, instead we went to the Middle East. Let savages be savages, so long as they are somewhere else.
As to everyone clamoring that we should obliterate Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh- you think we have a lot of Islamic problems now? Go ahead and destroy their holiest sites, and then you'll see a BILLION Muslims rally against the US and 9/11, San Bernardino, Paris, etc. will look like a freaking paddy cake game compared to the onslaught that would come our way.[/QUOTE]
In order...
We helped to create (or re-create) the modern state of Israel. We owe it to them to stand by our greatest and most beneficial (possibly only true) allies in the region.
Really? How so? Before they were our "greatest ally" in the region, we have no real enemies in it. More over how are they our friends with pulling crap like getting involved on our politics/elections, spying, stealing/selling weapons tech, never mind the USS Liberty...
More over if some Americans want to help them, why not end our aid and allow you to give your own money by choice?
Surgical and strategic bombing doesn't work without follow through. It would be like spraying for termites but failing to go after their nest.
True, Islam is the problem, we can not fight it short of wiping it out....So quarantine is the net best option.
I agree that we should help those in need here. But at the time we were assisting a UN mission to bring food to people in Somalia during a humanitarian crisis that hadn't been seen in decades. When the Marines withdrew that's when the warlords targeted the peacekeepers. Somalia wasn't a failure, it was abandoned. We lose 28 troops and pansy Clinton withdrew instead of doubling our efforts and hitting harder.
Really...Ok, lets play this game, lets say we come in and we dd say...What then? Do we nation build? What would have happened?
Rwanda was a genocide that killed at a rate 250X faster than Hitler did... Just let that go? There were armed Belgian and Canadian UN Troops there, able to stop it, and no one did anything. I believe Burke was very correct: "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." To that I would add, "can you call a man good if he does nothing in the face of evil?"
Well why did they not stop it?
How old were you? Why didnt you fly over and do something? I was around 6 so that was my reason more over its not my problem. If its not something its another, so unless someone comes over, tells these people "HEY! KNOCK IT OFF OR WE ARE GOING TO KILL BOTH OF YOU, NOW GET BACK TO WORK!" nothing is going to change. All you are going to be doing is cleaning up mess after mess after mess wasting lives and countless billions for Nothing.
I read Washington, but you have to realize that he was around when we had no real power to act on foreign affairs. Morally he probably would have supported stopping evil if we had the means. And persisting a "dragon" doesn't exist, when it clearly does, and doing nothing about it until that dragon comes to your home (9/11) is only inviting disaster. I would rather root out the enemy before it has a chance to strike.
Just because a Dragon exists does not mean it posses a threat, nor is it your job to slay it, nor does it mean you have an right to force other fight it against their will.
And if we stayed out of the Middle East and did not allow immigration from the Middle East it would not have happened. The Invade the world/Invite the World is clearly inviting disaster in into this nation, so is the idea of Pathological altruism as foreign policy.
Saddam had them, no question (don't believe me? Find a Kurd who was alive in 1993 and ask them), but we didn't have 100% containment of the Iraqi borders, thus he was able to get them out prior to the invasion (as an Iraqi general stated). Where do you think Assad got the chemical weapons he used against the rebels? I'm thinking he took the labels that said "made in Iraq" off before use
Find me proof it was Assad and not a false flag by ISIS to try and get us to ride to their aid by taking out Assad for them?
More over, how did Iraq end again?
I mean you have Haiti (19??-1930s), Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, all nation building, all total failures. At what point do you stop, look, learn, and apply what you did learn?
As to everyone clamoring that we should obliterate Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh- you think we have a lot of Islamic problems now? Go ahead and destroy their holiest sites, and then you'll see a BILLION Muslims rally against the US and 9/11, San Bernardino, Paris, etc. will look like a freaking paddy cake game compared to the onslaught that would come our way.
And we would round and up deport Muslims in this nation...
You really think they will not use nukes/WMDs when they have them? And when they use them just half ass it?
Plus, if they do that the public will not only turn a blind eye but it will openly encourage the deportation of muzzies from the West, hell they might even join in.
This is the end result of mass immigration/multiculturalism... Diversity+Proximity=War. You would think we would have learned the lesson by now but it just appears we need to be taught a few more times. Islam has a place in the world, the Middle East not world and sure as Hell not the West.
If I can ask, if you have your views, why have you not put them into practice? Why have you not flown to Africa and taken matters into your own hands like "The Machine Gun Preacher"?
Just what IS it with you and this insult word, "cucks" SG1? And who exactly is it meant to encompass?
I'm interested to know, SG1, if you feel you would qualify for citizenship in this country, by your current standards, if you were an immigrant.
I'm still trying to decipher his use of "more over". Or how it's actually spelled- moreover, it's one word, not two. We could start a drinking game with his use of that word.
Great-Kazoo
12-31-2016, 00:23
I'm still trying to decipher his use of "more over". Or how it's actually spelled- moreover, it's one word, not two. We could start a drinking game with his use of that word.
Wherever he chooses to play the game i'm in, whenever you decide where it will happen. Moreso, plan on it taking place in warmer weather
Just what IS it with you and this insult word, "cucks" SG1? And who exactly is it meant to encompass?
Well it was a very effect term to sum up people on the right before cuckservative was created.
A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.
It means conservatives who are afraid of social exclusion and kowtow to the liberal media establishment. They play the left’s game of identity politics, accusing their internal opponents, such as Donald Trump, of being racist or sexist or rapey for spurious or opportunistic reasons.
Rather than have the back of their allies or tell the left to worry about its own members, such as Barak Obama, Bill Ayers and Al Sharpton, the right has given the left moral authority.
Moderates hate the term for it's accuracy, as it taps into frustrations the conservative base has about the Republican Establishment’s capitulation or even silence on the issues that matter most to so many voters.
If this has not answered your question, I will answer further.
I'm interested to know, SG1, if you feel you would qualify for citizenship in this country, by your current standards, if you were an immigrant.
Why does that matter? I mean really, just because I was born here means I can not advocate for a very strict immigration system?
America exist for Americans, The reason why this nation was founded and build upon was so people would leave something to THEIR posterity, not anyone who just showed up one day. Its never wrong or amoral to keep out any group of this nation anymore then it is to keep them out of your home.
But to answer your question the standards would be high, why take less the the best?
Ideological test
Basic tests based on political views, ask them their stance on issues hooked up to a lie decorator, those that align with Traditionalist American views (Support limited government, lower taxes, property rights, uninfringed gun ownership, freedom of Association, etc) at least 75% will pass on to the next level of screening.
People can have any values, ideals, politics they want.... Just somewhere else. We have no obligation to let in subversive peoples, groups, ideologues into this nation.
Health Test
Battery of tests, blood work, etc. No major illness or defects will be granted entry.
Self Sufficiency Test
Min asset in the bank will be no less then $50,000 or equivalent in U.S Currency, denied any welfare services.
Maximum cap at 200,000 new people per year
Maybe base the numbers taken from each nation on the 1910 or 1930 census.
Any issue with those listed?
What would yours be?
I'm still trying to decipher his use of "more over". Or how it's actually spelled- moreover, it's one word, not two. We could start a drinking game with his use of that word.
Auto correct is a pain in the ass.
Doesn't the US have a dropping birthrate, like most other first world countries? Restricting immigration to 200,000 a year sounds like a sure way to rapidly reduce our country to a population that will either be easily over run by an invading force, fall off the map of economic relevance, or most likely, both. What is your true aim here? It sounds like your goal is to sweet talk this nation into oblivion.
Doesn't the US have a dropping birthrate, like most other first world countries? Restricting immigration to 200,000 a year sounds like a sure way to rapidly reduce our country to a population that will either be easily over run by an invading force, fall off the map of economic relevance, or most likely, both. What is your true aim here? It sounds like your goal is to sweet talk this nation into oblivion.
1st. A dropping birth rate is because a sluggish economy, and the ever increasing burden of every higher costs of housing/child care/education due to regulations and the increase in demand that is fueled by mass immigration. Furthermore you do not need more people to grow the economy.
If America needs more people, Americans are up to the task.
200,000 people leave the Country every year this would be a non net growth immigration plan and it works very well.
"Easily run over by a invading force"...Are you nuts? We are not going to see landing craft storm the beaches of Malibu, we are going to see you coming from a long ways away, stop you with missles, drones or nukes. The area of large armies slugging it out are for the most party gone.
Fall off the map of economic relevance
Funny, explain away Japan, Korea, Israel, etc, they have next to no mass immigration and their economic power houses?
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/11/25/immigration-japan-58908/
How did we have the greatest explosion of wealth and standard of living in the 50s and mid 60s while we had limited immigration under the 1924 Immigration Act?
How/why did wages sky rocket 90% between 1924-1970?
I will wait....
What is your true aim here? It sounds like your goal is to sweet talk this nation into oblivion.
What is your aim here? Please tell us how Mass immigration has helped this nation?
How has adding 60 million, largely 3rd world people to this nation legally since 1965 made things better?
How has adding 30 million illegals to this nation made things better?
How has bring in large numbers of people who take out more then they put in, given protected status, allowed to effect our economy, communities, elections, nation and the future of them improved anything?
What have they given us that we would not be able to do to ourselves at lower cost and less burden?
I want answers. I really do.
My aim? Its very simply, protect this nation, its culture, and our Liberty and enjoy life, being free and building a great future for myself, my posterity and my countrymen. Mass immigration (many things do but immigration is something entirely in our control) threatens that as we are taking in A. too many people B. from non compatible cultures C. with non compatible political values. If you change the people of a nation, you change its culture, change the culture, you change the political landscape of it, and the political landscape of these nations and supported by a majority of the incoming is the same tried and failed serfdom or marxist hellscape that made their home nations the current failed states they are now.
Seeing how groups vote in blocs for the Democratic party and if importation is not halted will result in America become a one party nation with the left controlling Congress and the White House (and the court by default)
you will be able to see what America looks like by gazing in horror at New York or California, no freedoms, no rights, a dimmer and dimmer future and a small ruling elite importing more serf voters to insure they are in power in perpetuity as the nation of the Founders is breed and bled out of exist.
This is very well document tactic that was used by Rome and a very well document tactic that the British did called the Ulster plantation, change the make up of an area with controllable people/groups, inflate them to the point a
of a majority, rule said majority via appointed rulers.
Immigration is the issue that really decides all others, if your politically enemies are able to change the nation to the point where you can not win national power it really does not matter what you want as you will never be able to achieve political power to enact them.
Their is still time to stop the keys from turning, we can still prevent this rigging of the deck. We can very easily secure the border, deport, limit legal immigration (along 1924 lines, updated for current issues/threats) and change the entire outcome.
GilpinGuy
12-31-2016, 07:17
A dropping birth rate is because a sluggish economy, and the ever increasing burden of every higher costs of housing/child care/education due to regulations and the increase in demand that is fueled by mass immigration.
Wealthier nations have lower birth rates in general.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25
Does NYCO have a new IP or something?
Ok, I'll bite. Suppose we update our immigration policy to your standards SG-1 and have effectively eliminated subversive migrants from within borders and coasts. Now what. You will still have 30 - 60%, (I'm guessing here), of the population that supports liberal, leftist, communist ideology, and more importantly will vote in that vein.
How are you going to ensure that only strong, anti socialism persons are born and raised here?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Great-Kazoo
12-31-2016, 09:36
Wealthier nations have lower birth rates in general.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25
Does NYCO have a new IP or something?
Which is unusual as the ability to access food easily allows one to reproduce better than one who is "starving" . Some time ago another study was done on the famished in Africa. It showed birth rates were almost non-existent where food availability was minimal. Once relief packages were present the birth rate increased as food and nutrients became available.
Catch 22, how does one stand by allowing the decimation of people through starvation. Yet come up with enough to feed the increasing population of a nourished one.
Ok, I'll bite. Suppose we update our immigration policy to your standards SG-1 and have effectively eliminated subversive migrants from within borders and coasts. Now what. You will still have 30 - 60%, (I'm guessing here), of the population that supports liberal, leftist, communist ideology, and more importantly will vote in that vein.
How are you going to ensure that only strong, anti socialism persons are born and raised here?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I'll give you a hint how people like this "person" thinks. He's hidden his eugenics ideals only so slightly. Blood and lie detector test [facepalm]
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/kDMrx8sS5.TuB3z3vvlTiQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2NoPTQxNjtjcj0xO2N3PTQxNTtkeD0wO2 R5PTA7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTEyMjtxPTk1O3c9Nzk-/https://s3.yimg.com/ls/img/1024/63eddf72-be7d-31c7-8bed-8c0c47b26b14
Surprised his tag line isn't SG1 UBER ALLES
Just gotta ask....are you affiliated with any party? And if so, what is it called?
The idea that higher costs drive down birthrate is absurd. What drives down birth rate is an acceptance of two things: the selfishness of contraception in conjunction with wanting to have a lifestyle that's of itself luxurious and overly materialistic.
Case in point:
This couple has 13 kids total, some old enough to be out of the house:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4069604/We-live-pleasant-simple-lives-Meet-couple-earn-110-000-year-THIRTEEN-kids-college-funds-never-owed-cent-debt.html
Between dad's salary and odd jobs, etc., they pull in around 110k a year. He went from owning a bookstore making 36k to doing a STEM job (software development) which pushed his salary higher... IT isn't rocket science. PLenty of average folks could do it if they'd devote what... 1-2 years of self-study to get their foot in the door.
COL comparison:
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/bowie-md/colorado-springs-co/110000
He would make around 91k here in COS (and since he is work from home, if he doesn't HAVE to go into the office a day or two a week, he could move somewhere even cheaper than Bowie, MD).
I know several families with huge amounts of kids (8-12 per family). All are traditional Catholics who place the fecundity of a marriage and the relationship of the family first and materialistic outlooks are low, low, low on the list. The husbands didn't "follow their dreams" and go into low paying liberal arts nonsense; they also didn't rest on the laurels of being some low level union-job having lackey. Not all of them are STEM, either. Of all, the wife doesn't work but stays home with the kids and generally homeschools -- if there's a period where there is an age gap big enough for older kids to take care of younger ones, they might get a part time job if needed. A few are light blue collar (and some are so blue collar you need a glove to shake their hand if you don't want to lose skin) and instead of buying some place in the city, they bought a little land and do things like sell chicken eggs, the kids do odd jobs to earn spending money, and clothes are passed down and repaired until they need to be replaced. Fanciest new things? No. TV cable costs? No. etc.
Let's be honest -- as Americans, in general, we live like kings of yesteryear. And we have no need to do so. We do this based on a cycle of debt and a post-ww2 seeking of (as Ann Barnhardt puts it) "precious, precious shit" which would give our grandparents a heart attack. One of my grandfathers was a mid-level manager of a mining operation in rural florida (phosphate), having worked his way up from the phosphate pits themselves. They lived in the same house my dad and his brother lived in as kids. 3 bed, 1 bath, 20 acres. Granddaddy and Granny gardened, canned food, and had very little in the way of possessions. What they lacked in shiny, they made up for in familial love and solid, traditional values. They were by and large happy. My mom's parents were much more well off, and they were generally miserable (possessions and pursuits don't fill the gap left by a horrible family life). Papa was a senior sales exec for Florida Citrus, making darn good money. Always in debt though, because the jump from being the wife of a ww2 sailor who left high school early to join the Navy to "being somebody" went to Mimi's head; Country Clubs are a hell of a drug. I would not call her atypical of the era and certainly she was more in line with today's mentality than not. Appearance mattered. Having new things mattered. My mom swears that when Papa got promoted and they moved to a "richer" area, the family began falling apart. Yet, they did have 6 kids total, the oldest of whom died shortly after being born due to complications from spina bifida. The problem, though, came in when they adopted a mentality of having possessions mattered, as did maintaining a social standing. Be honest -- isn't that the reason most people have their 1.2 kids, if any? Because it's too "expensive". It's not. What's expensive is a materialistic approach+kids+thinking they need all kinds of crap too+keeping up not only with the Joneses, but outpacing them.
I also know a young family, 3 kids all under 4, husband is a great friend of mine (actually my godfather from when I converted). He is an apprentice Electrician. If I had to guess, he probably makes around 17-20 an hour. They don't have a glorious life. Wife stays home with the kids. But, as best I can tell, they are happy. They're working towards a goal of him getting his foot in the door and becoming a Journeyman and eventually Master Electrician. He's non-Union. They do little things to make up for areas where $ might be lacking... i.e., leftover/scrap wire, he takes home, strips, and sells the copper. He strips it while they watch a dvd after the kids are asleep. No one promised him a rose garden, and after 4 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, experience as an outdoors guide in Alaska, converting to the Faith, he is not upset about life -- he's seen and experienced worse. In short, he's a man and not some whiny little boy with a possessions addiction.
I know far too many families with huge amounts of kids to believe that the economy is the problem. The economy is a symptom of the problem. Those who have a will, will make a way. It's just that simple. Blaming someone is a bitch move. THAT's why I don't dig the so-called Alt-Right. They seem more into blame than they do solutions.
SGI talks about wasting political capital on real moral issues, but then goes out into alt-right (that is, far left) field on ridiculous immigration issues which have no historical basis in working. It's like saying, "I want to eat the whole buffet, so kick out the other folks who want to eat". That doesn't solve the problem of a national gluttony. America has ALWAYS been a nation of immigrants. If Mexican/OTM immigration is a thing he wishes to stop, taking away the incentive to come here and stay would be a good middle ground to start with. We had that in the Bracero program. Two things led to its demise: Commie agitator Cesar Chavez and mistreatment by farmers. Reinstitute the program smartly, expand it to jobs Americans won't do aside from just farming, and you might just realize Pedro would rather be here 6 months and make 3 Mexican years of wages that he takes back to Sinaloa before he repeats the cycle. Kill NAFTA and make sure Mexican farming stops dying due to Big .Gov support of domestic failure, and you might find that a bunch of Pedros have no need to come here. Engage Mexico smartly as an ally, instead of facilitating their destruction, and one might find people are more apt to stay there.
A reaction from one extreme to the other extreme will only swing the pendulum. It's doesn't turn back the ticking of our national timebomb. That would require a national reawakening to the values, morals, and lifestyle that made America great in the first place. At that starts at home, not in some political office.
HBARleatherneck
12-31-2016, 13:16
I know several families with huge amounts of kids (8-12 per family). All are traditional Catholics .
not all of us are catholics though.
not all of us are catholics though.
One doesn't need to be, in order to have a kid. Case in point: Mormons.
BushMasterBoy
12-31-2016, 13:33
I just want to go to the other planet.
I just want to go to the other planet.
We could have had we not wasted 22 Trillion on "The war on poverty". We could have done so with Project Orion but we now have a massive welfare state, importing welfare cases, and sorts of failed programs. If we tried to do something like that today it would be much harder because there are too many competing groups that would probably not be thrilled to see the feds spending so much that did not come back to their community.
Wealthier nations have lower birth rates in general.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25
Does NYCO have a new IP or something?
Well they do need to increase to stay at or slightly above replacement level, and slashing immigration will go along way for this as to reduce cost/competition for housing, schooling, etc. Western people like all animals do not breed well in captivity.
Ok, I'll bite. Suppose we update our immigration policy to your standards SG-1 and have effectively eliminated subversive migrants from within borders and coasts.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Great Question.
Think of America as a ship, There is a hole in the hull (mass immigration) and water (marxist, leftist voters, supporters, useful idiots) is pouring in, isnt best to stop the influx...to plug the hole as to insure more water does not flow in? Because if you dont it will not matter how much water you pump out of the ship, more will just have more and more water to deal with and less time to until the ship sinks (collapses).
Now what. You will still have 30 - 60%, (I'm guessing here), of the population that supports liberal, leftist, communist ideology, and more importantly will vote in that vein.
Many things you can do to marginalize them.
Voter Protection Laws. showing ID, ending Motor Voter Laws, shorting "early" voting periods, limiting absentity ballots, walk back registration by a few months. This will really weed out the low/no info voters that make up the bulk of the marxist left. These people have little initiative and are largely unaware of civics
Gerrymandering. Create districts in the country, marge larger districts in urban areas together both federal and state elections. this will insure states have a state legislator with a GOP majority.
Census. Do not count Immigrants legal or illegal, this is how blue states cheat and inflate their numbers, just like the 3/5 clause only its with immigrants instead of slaves.
When we get the state Trifecta (State House, Senate, and Governor under one party) push through things like school vouchers/choice as to break the cycle of indoctrination of public schools, crack the wipe on illegals, ban the future ban on firearms, mags, etc, but what we are pushing for is a Permanent Victory...Article 5 Section 2.
A Convention of States (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42589.pdf) that would allow us to Amend the Constitution with a few amendments (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/01/08/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-states-rights)
We need 34 states to pass a bill, 8 already have Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Indiana and Louisiana and 33 states are controlled by Republicans--we must press our advantage while it lasts.
Just think of being able to over ride the Supreme Court with a 2/3 vote of the Senate, or a Balanced budget Amendment, or other handicapping of the Federal Parasite?
Some are worried about the left hijacking the Convention, while this a remote possibility it requires a min of 13 to approve of any an Amendment and it must be voted on and approved by the 38 states in order to be ratified into law.
And if I am wrong? Well the U.S Military will have to obey their oath and if necessary give a few traitors some helicopter rides.
This is a Golden Chance (maybe the last) to stop the left short of "other routes", but then again none of this will matter if we are diluted, displaced, and out voted by imported ringers.
How are you going to ensure that only strong, anti socialism persons are born and raised here?
Well an impossible end goal but we can improve upon our current state of things. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
In a word? Darwinism. Leftists are not breeding any were near replacement levels. (https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-liberalconservative-baby-gap-time-depth/) They have to indoctrinate children (and import voters) because they do not replace themselves anywhere near enough for them to propagate their own numbers.
If you take away leftists control of the education (via vouchers/choice, etc) they will lose new host to infect with their mental illness, that alone will be of a massive gain as we do not have to hope the real world will beat the lies of them, factor in the effects of immigration control, voter protection laws, etc and the future is very bright. But it must be fought for, secured and maintained with and for guards for our future security.
Let us insure that our future is firmly and solely in OUR hands.
Which is unusual as the ability to access food easily allows one to reproduce better than one who is "starving" . Some time ago another study was done on the famished in Africa. It showed birth rates were almost non-existent where food availability was minimal. Once relief packages were present the birth rate increased as food and nutrients became available.
Catch 22, how does one stand by allowing the decimation of people through starvation. Yet come up with enough to feed the increasing population of a nourished one.
I'll give you a hint how people like this "person" thinks. He's hidden his eugenics ideals only so slightly. Blood and lie detector test [facepalm]
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/kDMrx8sS5.TuB3z3vvlTiQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2NoPTQxNjtjcj0xO2N3PTQxNTtkeD0wO2 R5PTA7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTEyMjtxPTk1O3c9Nzk-/https://s3.yimg.com/ls/img/1024/63eddf72-be7d-31c7-8bed-8c0c47b26b14
Surprised his tag line isn't SG1 UBER ALLES
Wow, that was fast. So because I do not want subversive or sick/burden some people in this nation I am a Nazi? So why do you not say the same thing about Japan, Austria, or Israel?
Why should we let in people who are going to harm and reduce our standard of life, unity, wages, and our future?
Why is it people like you can not answer such question?
How does it feel to know your tactic of screaming "Nazi" or "Racist" does not really work anymore?
I get it, no one wants to admit they are wrong, but even if they do not admit or accept it it does not change what is true and the facts at hand?
Just gotta ask....are you affiliated with any party? And if so, what is it called?
GOP, but the Nationalist, Populism, Liberty mind wing. We are taking back the party from the Neo Con/Globalist wing which has been nothing but a failure at best and Controlled Opposition at worse.
The idea that higher costs drive down birthrate is absurd. What drives down birth rate is an acceptance of two things: the selfishness of contraception in conjunction with wanting to have a lifestyle that's of itself luxurious and overly materialistic.
Case in point:
This couple has 13 kids total, some old enough to be out of the house:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4069604/We-live-pleasant-simple-lives-Meet-couple-earn-110-000-year-THIRTEEN-kids-college-funds-never-owed-cent-debt.html
Between dad's salary and odd jobs, etc., they pull in around 110k a year. He went from owning a bookstore making 36k to doing a STEM job (software development) which pushed his salary higher... IT isn't rocket science. PLenty of average folks could do it if they'd devote what... 1-2 years of self-study to get their foot in the door.
COL comparison:
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/bowie-md/colorado-springs-co/110000
He would make around 91k here in COS (and since he is work from home, if he doesn't HAVE to go into the office a day or two a week, he could move somewhere even cheaper than Bowie, MD).
I know several families with huge amounts of kids (8-12 per family). All are traditional Catholics who place the fecundity of a marriage and the relationship of the family first and materialistic outlooks are low, low, low on the list. The husbands didn't "follow their dreams" and go into low paying liberal arts nonsense; they also didn't rest on the laurels of being some low level union-job having lackey. Not all of them are STEM, either. Of all, the wife doesn't work but stays home with the kids and generally homeschools -- if there's a period where there is an age gap big enough for older kids to take care of younger ones, they might get a part time job if needed. A few are light blue collar (and some are so blue collar you need a glove to shake their hand if you don't want to lose skin) and instead of buying some place in the city, they bought a little land and do things like sell chicken eggs, the kids do odd jobs to earn spending money, and clothes are passed down and repaired until they need to be replaced. Fanciest new things? No. TV cable costs? No. etc.
Let's be honest -- as Americans, in general, we live like kings of yesteryear. And we have no need to do so. We do this based on a cycle of debt and a post-ww2 seeking of (as Ann Barnhardt puts it) "precious, precious shit" which would give our grandparents a heart attack. One of my grandfathers was a mid-level manager of a mining operation in rural florida (phosphate), having worked his way up from the phosphate pits themselves. They lived in the same house my dad and his brother lived in as kids. 3 bed, 1 bath, 20 acres. Granddaddy and Granny gardened, canned food, and had very little in the way of possessions. What they lacked in shiny, they made up for in familial love and solid, traditional values. They were by and large happy. My mom's parents were much more well off, and they were generally miserable (possessions and pursuits don't fill the gap left by a horrible family life). Papa was a senior sales exec for Florida Citrus, making darn good money. Always in debt though, because the jump from being the wife of a ww2 sailor who left high school early to join the Navy to "being somebody" went to Mimi's head; Country Clubs are a hell of a drug. I would not call her atypical of the era and certainly she was more in line with today's mentality than not. Appearance mattered. Having new things mattered. My mom swears that when Papa got promoted and they moved to a "richer" area, the family began falling apart. Yet, they did have 6 kids total, the oldest of whom died shortly after being born due to complications from spina bifida. The problem, though, came in when they adopted a mentality of having possessions mattered, as did maintaining a social standing. Be honest -- isn't that the reason most people have their 1.2 kids, if any? Because it's too "expensive". It's not. What's expensive is a materialistic approach+kids+thinking they need all kinds of crap too+keeping up not only with the Joneses, but outpacing them.
I also know a young family, 3 kids all under 4, husband is a great friend of mine (actually my godfather from when I converted). He is an apprentice Electrician. If I had to guess, he probably makes around 17-20 an hour. They don't have a glorious life. Wife stays home with the kids. But, as best I can tell, they are happy. They're working towards a goal of him getting his foot in the door and becoming a Journeyman and eventually Master Electrician. He's non-Union. They do little things to make up for areas where $ might be lacking... i.e., leftover/scrap wire, he takes home, strips, and sells the copper. He strips it while they watch a dvd after the kids are asleep. No one promised him a rose garden, and after 4 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, experience as an outdoors guide in Alaska, converting to the Faith, he is not upset about life -- he's seen and experienced worse. In short, he's a man and not some whiny little boy with a possessions addiction.
I know far too many families with huge amounts of kids to believe that the economy is the problem. The economy is a symptom of the problem. Those who have a will, will make a way. It's just that simple. Blaming someone is a bitch move. THAT's why I don't dig the so-called Alt-Right. They seem more into blame than they do solutions.
not all of us are catholics though.
And Catholics are bloc voters for the left.
One doesn't need to be, in order to have a kid. Case in point: Mormons.
Thank for proving my point. Everyone who is struggling must be a bitch, or the issues they face must not exist as you do not face them...This classic moralist mindset is what is wrong with the so called right.
Really? Have you seen our solutions? Have you seen what I have recommended here? I am not the one whining and bitching without adding some kind of ideas on how to fix things.
SGI talks about wasting political capital on real moral issues, but then goes out into alt-right (that is, far left) field on ridiculous immigration issues which have no historical basis in working. It's like saying, "I want to eat the whole buffet, so kick out the other folks who want to eat". That doesn't solve the problem of a national gluttony. America has ALWAYS been a nation of immigrants. If Mexican/OTM immigration is a thing he wishes to stop, taking away the incentive to come here and stay would be a good middle ground to start with. We had that in the Bracero program. Two things led to its demise: Commie agitator Cesar Chavez and mistreatment by farmers. Reinstitute the program smartly, expand it to jobs Americans won't do aside from just farming, and you might just realize Pedro would rather be here 6 months and make 3 Mexican years of wages that he takes back to Sinaloa before he repeats the cycle. Kill NAFTA and make sure Mexican farming stops dying due to Big .Gov support of domestic failure, and you might find that a bunch of Pedros have no need to come here. Engage Mexico smartly as an ally, instead of facilitating their destruction, and one might find people are more apt to stay there.
A reaction from one extreme to the other extreme will only swing the pendulum. It's doesn't turn back the ticking of our national timebomb. That would require a national reawakening to the values, morals, and lifestyle that made America great in the first place. At that starts at home, not in some political office.
Clearly you fail to understand Immigration effects everything, crime, terrorism, economy, taxes, demographics (their effects on elections). But that does not change that fact that it is.
We are not far left, we do not ignore facts and scream cliches and charges of "racist" when we are clearly losing on the issues.
"No historical basis for working?" Maybe you should read a little on the issue. http://usinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/USImmigrationhistorylutton.pdf
Our immigration restrictions clearly work, some people here just cant stand the idea that some have better then others and some how see it as "unfair".
No, America is not a "nation of immigrants". Just saying something does not make it so. America was Founded by the decedents of Settlers and was intended for their Posterity, not to become some flop house. If you read the works of the Founders they were against mass immigration of all groups as they understood it would change the nation and clearly not for the better.
We tried that before, it was abused, so we are going to bring in machines. They work all day (and night) never get hurt, cost less and burden not cent to the tax payer, why do you object to this?
NAFTA was a mistake and classic example of why free trade is a crock, and its time we end it.
We are going to engage Mexico smartly, we are going to do what is best for America, the wall is going up, they are going to pay for it (via taxes on remittances)
How is that going to work when we are importing people who do not want to tweak anything and just vote for a welfare check again?
Remember in a democracy if you vote to keep your stuff and two people vote to take it from you, you lose fair and square, see how that works? If you are against being plundered you are some how the 'bad guy".
You clearly have some passion but you are clearly ignore the facts.
Great-Kazoo
12-31-2016, 20:08
Wow, that was fast. So because I do not want subversive or sick/burden some people in this nation I am a Nazi? So why do you not say the same thing about Japan, Austria, or Israel?
Why should we let in people who are going to harm and reduce our standard of life, unity, wages, and our future?
Why is it people like you can not answer such question?
How does it feel to know your tactic of screaming "Nazi" or "Racist" does not really work anymore?
I get it, no one wants to admit they are wrong, but even if they do not admit or accept it it does not change what is true and the facts at hand?
There's no reason to admit i'm wrong, when i'm not. I posted the flag as you were referencing eugenics in another post here. Two things call to mind that way of thinking. Late 30's Germany and Margret Sanger
I inquired because i want to know at what point does one draw the line? Muslims today, Irish, italian the next. You want everyone to provide blood purity cards to verify they're not trying to pass them self off as white.
I believe the only party you belong to is the Delusional party.
There's no reason to admit i'm wrong, when i'm not. I posted the flag as you were referencing eugenics in another post here. Two things call to mind that way of thinking. Late 30's Germany and Margret Sanger
I inquired because i want to know at what point does one draw the line? Muslims today, Irish, italian the next. You want everyone to provide blood purity cards to verify they're not trying to pass them self off as white.
I believe the only party you belong to is the Delusional party.
You are wrong, all you are doing is using a reductio ad hitlerum as you can not defend allowing in people who are a burden or a threat.
Who wouldn`t you allow into the nation? Can you answer that?
I set my proposed rules, ideas, limits, you have offered nothing but 'Your are mean!".
I get it, you can not answer it as the facts prove you wrong. Why not accept facts as facts and leave the lies and myths the cultural marxist have forced on you in the trash where they belong.
And this episode of SG1 trolls the board has reached it's conclusion.
Please tune in next time (or don't) when this young man will explain how he has all of the answers and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.