dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Remember, one person defines an entire group.
Remember, one person defines an entire group.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
- Thread starter ExileOnDaytonStreet
- Start date
- Status
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Most here believe in efficient government to one extent or another. But it just seems like everytime a conservative starts talking about fiscal prudence...which everyone believes in, invariably it shifts to social conservatism. Reagan, Bush, the Tea Party, even Ron Paul. I have a friend who is running for the GOP in a district in Minnesota...and told me his toughest interview was with the Tea Party. This guy is considerably right of me...but he just told me he just said whatever was the most social conservative thing he could think of and they loved it.
I just saw you talking social conservative and happened to come across this as a sign of the gigantic issue for conservatives which is the ongoing slide from fiscal to social...which appeared relevent
Most here believe in efficient government to one extent or another. But it just seems like everytime a conservative starts talking about fiscal prudence...which everyone believes in, invariably it shifts to social conservatism. Reagan, Bush, the Tea Party, even Ron Paul. I have a friend who is running for the GOP in a district in Minnesota...and told me his toughest interview was with the Tea Party. This guy is considerably right of me...but he just told me he just said whatever was the most social conservative thing he could think of and they loved it.
I just saw you talking social conservative and happened to come across this as a sign of the gigantic issue for conservatives which is the ongoing slide from fiscal to social...which appeared relevent
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Since the "Tea Party" is a movement and not an organization, there's no getting "kicked out." I'm sure you don't understand, it's a difficult concept for someone such as yourself to grasp.
But if you're talking about radicals and racist... most people in the movement would rather not associate with the few of these people you're talking about. But that won't stop you from using your broad brush, now will it?
Since the "Tea Party" is a movement and not an organization, there's no getting "kicked out." I'm sure you don't understand, it's a difficult concept for someone such as yourself to grasp.
But if you're talking about radicals and racist... most people in the movement would rather not associate with the few of these people you're talking about. But that won't stop you from using your broad brush, now will it?
XYZ
Smoking in the selection room.
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
So do you actually believe what you say or are you actually cognizant of the fact you just make **** up as you go along?
So do you actually believe what you say or are you actually cognizant of the fact you just make **** up as you go along?
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
People within the Tea Party movement do seem to cover a very large spectrum of conservatives. It seems foolish to try to categorize them at all. Even something as broad as "conservatives disenchanted with the Republican Party" seems too specific.
Which is fine by me. Things will get really interesting when you start seeing "People's Front Judea"/"Judean People's Front" splits among them. It's inevitable. These people are going to elect a lot of Republicans, very few of which will actually practice fiscal responsibility, which will cheese off a large portion of the movement's base.
People within the Tea Party movement do seem to cover a very large spectrum of conservatives. It seems foolish to try to categorize them at all. Even something as broad as "conservatives disenchanted with the Republican Party" seems too specific.
Which is fine by me. Things will get really interesting when you start seeing "People's Front Judea"/"Judean People's Front" splits among them. It's inevitable. These people are going to elect a lot of Republicans, very few of which will actually practice fiscal responsibility, which will cheese off a large portion of the movement's base.
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
I think you're right, which is disappointing to me because I think there are still a number of committed Republicans, or Republicans who are trying to use the Tea Party to their own ends without being overly interested in the reasons behind the movement.
The reality is that while the Tea Party does represent a the focus on fiscal conservatism GOP has had as a lip service line for decades. So it's good to ask - why stay with the GOP when they've promised and never delivered (or haven't delivered in a quarter century, depending on your outlook)? Two reasons - A) the Republicans are not the party in power at present, and the basic genesis for the movement was the frustration with the current government kicking spending into overdrive, and B) the GOP at least has had fiscal conservatism as part of its platform even if they haven't governed with it. Encouraging the GOP to govern that way is easier than encouraging the Democrats to do so.
Your scenario for the movement splintering if the GOP gains power and continues the tax/borrow and spend trend is certainly plausible, but there's another one out there too... while a unified movement could potentially start supporting the Democrats, the B) section above makes that a difficult proposition. At present, the majority of the movement wants to work within the two-party system to get what they want, but if the GOP decides to maintain the status quo, the tactics may change. The movement by and large is seeking to punish the Democrats by electing Republicans, but if that doesn't work, supporting Democrats to punish the GOP doesn't get them anywhere. I think in that situation you are going to see some more third-party challenges that will have the election of Democrats as the end result, but the point will be made.
This is definitely way off topic, but I wanted to touch on it in the thread it was brought up in.
I think you're right, which is disappointing to me because I think there are still a number of committed Republicans, or Republicans who are trying to use the Tea Party to their own ends without being overly interested in the reasons behind the movement.
The reality is that while the Tea Party does represent a the focus on fiscal conservatism GOP has had as a lip service line for decades. So it's good to ask - why stay with the GOP when they've promised and never delivered (or haven't delivered in a quarter century, depending on your outlook)? Two reasons - A) the Republicans are not the party in power at present, and the basic genesis for the movement was the frustration with the current government kicking spending into overdrive, and B) the GOP at least has had fiscal conservatism as part of its platform even if they haven't governed with it. Encouraging the GOP to govern that way is easier than encouraging the Democrats to do so.
Your scenario for the movement splintering if the GOP gains power and continues the tax/borrow and spend trend is certainly plausible, but there's another one out there too... while a unified movement could potentially start supporting the Democrats, the B) section above makes that a difficult proposition. At present, the majority of the movement wants to work within the two-party system to get what they want, but if the GOP decides to maintain the status quo, the tactics may change. The movement by and large is seeking to punish the Democrats by electing Republicans, but if that doesn't work, supporting Democrats to punish the GOP doesn't get them anywhere. I think in that situation you are going to see some more third-party challenges that will have the election of Democrats as the end result, but the point will be made.
This is definitely way off topic, but I wanted to touch on it in the thread it was brought up in.
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Big day in court today for SB1070, as a number of the lawsuits are before the judge:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/11/20100711arizona-immigration-law-justic-department.html
Big day in court today for SB1070, as a number of the lawsuits are before the judge:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/11/20100711arizona-immigration-law-justic-department.html
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Nuevo Laredo's not having fun.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico
Nuevo Laredo's not having fun.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
This is the paradox of any fringe movement: as long as you only back the established party closest to you, they'll happily feed you rhetoric, take your money and votes, and treat you like a useful idiot (see: religious fundamentalists prior to 2000, fiscal conservatives since 2000, and monetary fruitcakes for the GOP; environmentalists, peaceniks and anti-corporatists for the Dems). The only way to have eventual influence is to run third party candidates, ensuring the election of the worst candidate (from your point of view), since the mainstream party you hurt will adopt some of your policies to co-opt you and avoid oblivion).
This is the paradox of any fringe movement: as long as you only back the established party closest to you, they'll happily feed you rhetoric, take your money and votes, and treat you like a useful idiot (see: religious fundamentalists prior to 2000, fiscal conservatives since 2000, and monetary fruitcakes for the GOP; environmentalists, peaceniks and anti-corporatists for the Dems). The only way to have eventual influence is to run third party candidates, ensuring the election of the worst candidate (from your point of view), since the mainstream party you hurt will adopt some of your policies to co-opt you and avoid oblivion).
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
The GAO concludes more needs to be done on the border:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7120928.html
It's interesting that they note that smuggling has morphed to a point where most smuggling is done by criminal organizations, whereas it used to be folks wandering across the border.
I enjoyed to part where they say the feds should look to Arizona for inspiration!
The GAO concludes more needs to be done on the border:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7120928.html
It's interesting that they note that smuggling has morphed to a point where most smuggling is done by criminal organizations, whereas it used to be folks wandering across the border.
I enjoyed to part where they say the feds should look to Arizona for inspiration!
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
And the federal judge has apparently indicated that she will let stand at least some parts of SB1070, with the remaining parts to be addressed by her later, presumably soon though, given it's set to go in effect at the end of July.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/23/20100723arizona-immigration-law-federal-judge-reviews-law.html
And the federal judge has apparently indicated that she will let stand at least some parts of SB1070, with the remaining parts to be addressed by her later, presumably soon though, given it's set to go in effect at the end of July.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/23/20100723arizona-immigration-law-federal-judge-reviews-law.html
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San...ug-cartel-takes-control-2-US-ranches-in-Texas
Whiskey tango foxtrot... Bring in the guard...
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San...ug-cartel-takes-control-2-US-ranches-in-Texas
Whiskey tango foxtrot... Bring in the guard...
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
As I said on GPL:
Um, holy *?
F 'em. Bring the pain. This is becoming a friggin' joke. It's time to give the middle finger to Mexico (until they get their stuff together) and flex our muscle.
As I said on GPL:
Um, holy *?
F 'em. Bring the pain. This is becoming a friggin' joke. It's time to give the middle finger to Mexico (until they get their stuff together) and flex our muscle.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
I read some parts of a multi-part set on these animals and their well equipped para-military counterparts on Brietbart's new "Big Peace" website. The narco-terrorist state of Mexico (and, no, this is not a stretch any more) is going to cause bigger and bigger problems as we continue to ignore it and worse try to steadfastly ignore it by working on issues like "amnesty". I mean, the signs in Arizona that don't guarantee safety in the United States due to human and drug trafficking is flat out unacceptable and only a complicit media is stopping this from being a more visible issue.
lets just see where this all goes... with the military hardware coming up from the south eventually something will go plaid... but don't tell me it was a "surprise" or "unexpected".
edit: there has been noises of some really weird things going on along the US/Mexico border for quite awhile... nobody has a real interest in it because it demonstrates that not all is well. I mean, I saw another article about another narco-mob body pile... 48 men, 3 women. All is not well there.
I read some parts of a multi-part set on these animals and their well equipped para-military counterparts on Brietbart's new "Big Peace" website. The narco-terrorist state of Mexico (and, no, this is not a stretch any more) is going to cause bigger and bigger problems as we continue to ignore it and worse try to steadfastly ignore it by working on issues like "amnesty". I mean, the signs in Arizona that don't guarantee safety in the United States due to human and drug trafficking is flat out unacceptable and only a complicit media is stopping this from being a more visible issue.
lets just see where this all goes... with the military hardware coming up from the south eventually something will go plaid... but don't tell me it was a "surprise" or "unexpected".
edit: there has been noises of some really weird things going on along the US/Mexico border for quite awhile... nobody has a real interest in it because it demonstrates that not all is well. I mean, I saw another article about another narco-mob body pile... 48 men, 3 women. All is not well there.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Yeah, if this is true and all civilians are accounted for, I would have no issue if the government dropped a GBU-39 on the ranch assuming the owners would be ok with that
Yeah, if this is true and all civilians are accounted for, I would have no issue if the government dropped a GBU-39 on the ranch assuming the owners would be ok with that
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Remember, this all America's fault for not banning assault weapons.
Remember, this all America's fault for not banning assault weapons.
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
Drop the bomb, and reimburse the owners via govt money. I have zero problem with that.
Honestly, stop policing the world, and let's get this crap solved. Now.
Yeah, if this is true and all civilians are accounted for, I would have no issue if the government dropped a GBU-39 on the ranch assuming the owners would be ok with that
Drop the bomb, and reimburse the owners via govt money. I have zero problem with that.
Honestly, stop policing the world, and let's get this crap solved. Now.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?
How much would the reimbursement cost? $500,000 tops? I have no doubt you could get 500,000 people to donate a buck if that happened.
How much would the reimbursement cost? $500,000 tops? I have no doubt you could get 500,000 people to donate a buck if that happened.
- Status