The problem is really not with illegal immigrants. The problem is with our socialist trending govt and society, and its accommodation of ridiculous demands by minority groups. Open the borders up completely... but only after you shut off public education, welfare, medicaid, affirmative action, etc. etc. Do we believe in freedom or don't we? If you're for closed borders, you might as well be carrying a union card and socialist party one as well.
I'm split on this issue, really. I reject the notion that opposers of amnesty, bilingual education etc. are "racist", but I also see the impracticality of gathering up every illegal alien and shipping them back to Mexico. I also reject the notion that immigration is economically harmful. If these were legal citizens I'd have NO problem whatsoever with them taking a construction job which is open anyway. But allowing our border to remain open is equally impractical, and a solution is needed.
Amazing that La Raza tries to claim "This is OUR continent." Oh, really? The Spanish is native to SPAIN, which last time I checked is in Europe. So you better send about half YOUR family back, too. If Whites didn't come to America, there would be nothing for them to desire because it would still look like the rest of Latin America does today, and we've seen how desperate Latinos are to leave the fruits of what they've sewn there.
@EdwardJellico I absolutely DETEST when multiculturalism advocates say that! It's an unabashedly race driven and historically illiterate claim. The Spanish were the first to conquer land in the New World... and over 90% of Mexico' population is AT LEAST partially Spanish.
The thing is, is that European Americans can not go back. What country would I go back to, and what country would take me. Germany, England, Italy, Ireland? This is the only country many white Americans have. So we better take good care of it. Also it is the only country for the indigenous people of this continent. Mexicans are not pure indigenous people, plus they have a democratic country just south of here that they could go fix. Don't they what to even live in Mexico, and be Mexican?
No wonder America has become a giant debtor nation. We couldn't even afford the cost of our military being the self-appointed policeman to the world. Now we are allowing all these illegal alien invaders to make us the welfare system of the world, so that we are evolving into the prison system of the whole world.
Citizenship of a country is a precious thing that is worth bleeding and sacrificing for. My forefathers suffered for it. Why do you have dual-citizenship? How did u get it? Are u a panamanian or an American? Does it depend on what side of the fukn bed u wake up on!
come to american soil the LEGAL WAY! and you will be accepted with open arms, other than that LEAVE! thats it nothing else to say. plain, simple to understand. if here illegaly then you have commited a crime, you should be arrested and deported, also simple, and plain to understand. this has nothing to do with racism or anything like that so dont go there.
I do not see how anyone has the right to tell me who I may or may not pay to do a specific task for me. Freedom to contract, freedom of association, and the property rights those stem from, are all violated by such legislation upon employers.
You may like the cheap labor. But Illegals cost all of us through subsidies paid for by your's and my taxes. You may save a few bucks but it isn't fair that you cost me and everyone else.
And I oppose those subsidies and handouts. I oppose any form of theft and robbery, especially those forms accepted as common place and established such as that for of robbery called government.
Do not assault the immigrant for being the recipient of the spoils of robbers who pilfer your purse, assault the robber himself! End his tyrannical robbery and subsequent spending spree and the moths drawn to that flame, finding the flame snuffed out, will soon disperse
If you are hiring illegals then you are a criminal and a traitor. You are the problem. You are taking advantage of the poor simply to line your greed pockets. Like it or not taxes are a necessary evil. And an advantage to every citizen.
How can I betray something I never pledged loyalty to? How can it be criminal to hire someone without your permission?
How can I take advantage of a man who voluntarily works for me? If I have wheat and you have corn and we trade it is because you value the wheat more than the corn and vica versa. Both of us profit. Mutual benefit is achieved.
Taxes are no more necessary than being commonly mugged on a regular basis. I fail to see the advantage of being forced to fund a organization I despise.
Maybe traitor was a but harsh. Criminal because there are laws prohibiting it with in the US borders which you live(I assume)Like it or not we need laws. Taking advantage of his lack of advantage because he is a illegal. Were there no illegals you would have to pay a decent wage. He works for shit because he has to, not by choice. There's no negotiation involved. Taxes pay for roads, schools, police, government in general. Without which anarchy would ensue. If you hate it here. why are you here?
law does not need to come from a central agency that monopolizes law and justice.
There is no such thing as a objectively 'decent' wage unless you ascribe to some sort of labor theory of value, which I do not. Do you consider that minimum wage laws are what give him this advantage over other workers in the first place?
taxes are robbery. whatever is purchased with them does not change that fact. I very much hope that anarchy (not chaos) WOULD ensue
I doubt the truth of this statement. I have yet to meet an anarchist who does not see that taxes are indeed robbery writ large. I fail to see the relation to me being a market anarchist.
I want you to find me one "anarchist" who sees taxes as anything but robbery. As anything but positive law (which is entirely the opposite of negative liberty and anarchism) and theft at its base.
If taxes are stealing, the old age pensioners will die in poverty, by the millions, children will die because of lack of healthcare and lots more. Anyone who wants to get rid of all taxes is a monster, although they might not know it.
Anyone who looks at the before and after statistics of 65+ poverty in respect to the introductions of state pensions and still comes to the conclusion they are a bad idea is so ideologically indoctrinated they aren't worth conversing with.
my point is that even an ancap would pay a premium to hire a kinsman. the size of that premium would depend on the proximity of the kinship. if your perception of kin-group extends to your nation (as it does for many, if not most, americans) you view the hiring of "foreigners" by your countrymen as a betrayal. when RAPSUCKS1738 called you a traitor, he meant it. am i making sense?
It is if you're counting on your neighbors' help in defending your life, liberty, and property. By yourself, you wouldn't be able to protect those things from a troop of determined girl scouts. Some things HAVE to be done as a collective. All primates organize themselves into groups which collectively defend, and monopolize the resources of, a territory. Strip away the ideologies and other window-dressing, and we're not much different from a troop of baboons.
you are confusing organization with forced organization. Believe it or not, men do not need to be prodded, threatened, tortured, or otherwise coerced into organizing for their own benefit. Perhaps if you knew anything about economics or just walked to your local 711 you would realize this.
Economic determinism is a meme that libertarians have borrowed from Marx. Do you think you can offer me enough money to sell my children, or sell out my countrymen? Think again. Family, clan, tribe, nation, language, shared history and values, mindset, common standards of behavior and morality, ad infinitum; these things matter.
economic determinism is something that is completely lacking in Austrian economic theory (which a large number of libertarians adopt), which just goes to show your own ignorance.
the facts are as follows:
You want to force others to do what you say regardless of choice.
You want to force others to pay money to a gang of criminals that you find a "necessary" evil.
And you feel that your own subjective preferences for hiring persons X with traits Y is grounds to force everyone else to as well.
Economic determinism isn't a school of economics, it's a historical theory. Marxists are radical collectivists (group rights). Libertarians are radical individualists (individual rights). Both see people as deracinated, interchangeable units - motivated, aside from their "rights," by economic considerations alone. Both trivialize or ignore; biology, tradition, family, faith, culture, nation, and race. Both are childishly simplistic. Both are wrong.
The term; economic determinism, may have connotations in addition to the one I intended - the tendency to reduce all causality in society to one single factor. Economic reductionism might express that definition more unequivocally. I hope that helps.
I see the importation of third world slave labor as the first step in ethnic cleansing. It is an attack on my economic, cultural, and genetic interests. I am willing to respond to aggression with every means at my disposal, up to and including force.
I can hardly call hiring a man under the table slave labor, or allowing little brown people to live near me "ethnic cleansing". Your definition of force seems so broad only to justify your own ACTUAL use of force.
what would you say to taking this to video format in the place of this textual seesaw for the entertainment of others and easement of discourse?
Yep. It's called socialization of costs and privatization of profits. You get all the advantages of chattel slavery without the expenses. The greatest swindle ever invented.
Hardly. I consider the state a "necessary evil" with a handful of legitimate functions. Preventing invasions, civilian or military, is at the top of my short list.
there are alternatives that can and have existed to replace state as provider of security and plenty of economic analysis and theory to back that claim up.
This is true, but the Federal Government has a history of keeping people out of the US because they find them undesirable. Chinese Exclusion Act for instance. However, because we live in a culture that has become more culturally aware, because minorities wield greater political power, the government is slow to act on the open borders, which is really sad, because I am a third generation American on both sides of my parents, and I don't identify with Mexican culture.
Unforunately, it seems many people confuse culture with race. For example, look at the diversity of Europe. A lot of white people with different cultures.
That is not a good example because Europe warred for centuries over their trival differences and territorial disputes, and Europe still has a lot of problems with countries that are really poor.
Well, the point was that one race can have more than one culture; not about -how- they got those cultures. :) So just because someone doesn't like a culture, doesn't necessarily mean he/she is racist. So that's like if someone were to say that white Europeans are racist towards themselves because they don't like another white group's culture; it wouldn't make sense to refer to it as "racism" since they're the same race. :)
Actually, that is still not true. Irish, which are white, have for centuries been looked down upon because they were thought of as subhuman because of their culture. Racism exists everywhere, it is just the extent to which people are willing to show it.
What makes anyone think that pour immigration policy should be anything less than a benefit to the US is beyond me.I really don't see the advantage to the US of importing more poor low skilled, low educated workers into the US. Taxpayers give nearly $20,000 to our poor in benefits and welfare. Why should we make it harder on the poor we already have. If they would pay a decent wage for those jobs which americans supposedly won't do I bet americans would do them.
Higher wages go to more skilled work. A housekeeper does not, and rightfully should not, make as much money as computer tech, nurse, etc. Fruit picking and construction need workers who will work in the sun long hours, with few breaks, for little money. The American hegemony was built upon the backs of unskilled workers and laborers.
Like a CEO earning more money than he could possibly dream of spending, plus bonuses? I think the woman on a pittance cleaning his office, getting up early and going home late, is a more skilled worker and certainly deserves more compensation for her time.
How skilled? Given the CEO has the advantage of being able to uses his means to gain the upper hand in the education and many other areas. Regardless though who really is more skilled? If you were to put the very things that employees look for regardless of race. Even still she isn't doomed to the bottom for life ether.
Well what you think and reality are not one and the same. It doesn't matter that the CEO is making more money than they possibly need, this is the capitalistic system in which we live, deal with it. Secondly, this CEO had to go to college to get his degree in order to make his life what it is, while the worker might be less than able to chart a companies economic growth.
CompleteLoser you wrote "this is the capitalistic system in which we live,"
True that is why employers should have to pay what it cost to get a LEGAL CITIZEN to do that work. Labor cost are a commodity that are no different than gas or anything else.
Actually, what you are suggesting are completely at odds with the Capitalistic system. The whole idea of capitalism is to do things cheaper and better. Employers should pay as little as possible, but Americans have become extremely satiated in their wants and demands. Higher wages means higher prices and Americans do not want that. That is why we have Lead filled products out China, child run sweatshops, and immigrants pouring over the borders to fill jobs that are low paying.
Are you suggesting that there wouldn't be lead filled products and child sweat shops here if your definition of capitalism were the norm? If labor isn't a commodity and wages are at a minimum who will by their products? The whole idea of capitalism is to give incentives for people to produce. It works because people have a chance to get ahead and better themselves. Driving down their wages takes that incentive away.
No, I am suggesting that if we were in a purely Capitalistic system, then there would be this all the time, however, we don't. Labor is a commodity, but wages are negotiable. Illegals are using their labor just as Americans are, but they are selling it for less, because Americans want higher wages, and thus are undercut. It is called Globalism, and like it or not, we are stuck in the middle of it.
You're suggesting is the most pointless ever proposed, a "pure Capitalist" system of free markets will never, ever be realised, it only works in an imaginary world.
You're an idiot, you can't even spell laissez-faire.
Who built the railways in the US, not the private sector, they were too stupid, the army had to be called upon. And protectionism was extreme in the early 20th century, why do you think the Japanese bombed Pear Harbour, because they wanted to pick a fight with the most powerful country in the world?
Attacking my spelling is not a way to win an argument, number one.
Secondly, the railways in the United States were largely built by the Chinese, illegal Chinese migrants at that. They worked for less than the Americans and worked harder.
Also, Japan did attack the United States mainly out of Imperialism, not just because of Protectionism. No economically rich country in the world has gotten that way through Free Trade first, Protectionism is the way to go. Perry Expedition, look it up.
The Chinese weren't "illegal Chinese migrants," they were kidnapped foreign civilians - a form of slavery.
The US closed off its markets to Japan, because Japanese products were superior (much like the 1980s), and as a result Pearl Harbour was bombed in December of 1941.
I know that protectionism is how all the major economies developed, that is my point.
What I think you are referring to is Coolie Labor. Some were kidnapped, some volunteered, not realizing what they were getting into, but many Chinese immigrated here illegally. Illegally with the United States, and their own government.
There were many targets for Japan, all of whom less awesome than the United States of America, it is an insult to claim they attacked mainly out of imperialism.
No it is the truth. Japan was harbored resentment towards the United States since the Perry Expedition, when the US forced Japan's doors open. Japan imperial empire was quickly stretching across Asia; China, Russia, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. Japan believed they were superior to other races. It is called the Sino-centric world view.
I am not totally sure, but I am more than willing to bet they didn't. After WWII, the United States had a hegemony, and thus wanted free trade in the world. Closing their markets to foreign countries would not make sense.
You really are stupid, they wanted free trade for everyone else and high tariffs and subsidies for themselves. What do you think GATT and the WTO were for?
Resorting to petty name calling is a sure fire way to lose a discussion. I admitted that I didn't know, thus calling me stupid for trying to deduce it out is ignorant at best and lazy at worst. The US continuously calls for free trade because that is what best benefits them, the WTO forces open markets to the US but markets such as Brazil cannot compete with US products, and thus, they don't have much weight in our economy.
The US calls for free trade, but it doesn't WANT free trade. It wants liberalisation for the poor countries but subsidies and protective tariffs for itself.
You believe that if you want. Maybe you also believe invading Iraq was because Saddam had WMD and Bush wanted to bring freedom and democracy to his people.
And I would suggest the same for you. That was the whole point of the embargo which was also supported by the UK and other Western nations. The whole point of it was to stifle Japans attacks in China and force them to stop. What they didn't see coming was Japan in order to continue the war directly seizing the resources it needed. I also don't believe in the Iraq war was a good idea but I also do believe we are responsible to stabilize the damage caused.
No, it wasn't. The West couldn't care less about what Japan was doing to China, that's why Japan was forced to pay reparations for crimes after the 7th of December 1941 and not before.
I mean really, do you just believe what the US leaders tell you unquestioningly?
I gave you evidence, you dismiss it out of hand by saying, "My leader said so, it must be the case!" You couldn't get any better from a North Korean propagandist.
Oh thankyou, you have open my eyes to the truth. America bad, thankyou, now I can go on living my life because you have shown me the way. Thankyou, my simple mind has been cleared thanks to your brillance. Despite the fact that I have spent the last two years intensively studying Asian history, and I wrote my senior thesis about Chinese global politics.
Again, thankyou for showing me the light. I will never trust the awful US government again.
Yes I trust the government, but I am also not some paranoid freak who thinks that all the actions of the government are to disparage certain groups of people.
No I don't disagree with your facts, I haven't since we have begun this who delienation into ball busting, just your conclusions from them. You give importance to thoughts and ideas that I think are less important.
I was barely alive during the years of the Soviet Union, but you are right, I wouldn't put it past the Soviet Union to pull some horrible stunts, but that is because they have a long history of it. You seem to think that I believe the US is perfect, no one is, nothing is, and believe me, I don't give a pass to the US, but would I like to live anywehre else? No, not really.
What about the long history of the US? George Washington wasn't called the "Town Destroyer" for no reason. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and the list goes on. The US is no different than the Soviet Union, it just happens to be better to its own citizens.
What does liking to live in a country and thoughts on its actions abroad have to do with each other?
Then you have contradicted yourself, because if the US government only cared for itself, it would not bother treating its citizens with any kind of kindness at all. BTW, all countries are have problems.
I am making a point of about the evils of the US. They do bad, but even so, I still love living here, not because it is perfect, but because of the freedoms and standard of living I am afforded.
The US government does not want to treat its citizens with any kindness, it is forced to. People cause problems for their government, and it is forced to change or be changed. How do you think social security was implemented, a gift from above?
I like living in the UK, does it mean I look away when my country does bad things, no. Does it mean I want to leave because I know it does bad things, no. My comment is not on the standard of living in the country, not is it on the people.
Then how do you explain despotic regimes lasting for so long?
Also, Social Security grew out of the Great Depression, and FDR believe that the government should take care of its citizens instead of letting them die in the streets.
I find it suspect that you would lecture me on US history, when you live in the UK, and are not a history major. Though you are well versed for fairness sake.
Your first question is so silly, explain to me how slavery lasted so long? If slavery was so bad, why wasn't it thrown out earlier? Your measurement is a poor one. Also, there was a revolution in Iran, an attempted one in Iraq in 1991 - the US didn't give the generals the captured Iraqi weapons they asked for, so they died.
On Social Security, if the people hadn't organised into movements and caused a ruckus, do you think FDR would have simply given them Social Security and unemployment anyway?
You can't blame FDR for the welfare state. That is congress's fault. SS was never intended to be used for everything that it is. From the 60's on congress seems to have lost their fucking mind. LOL Ted Kennedy is to blame for a lot of it. Chain migration being one of his better ideas (sarcasm)
We had a vested intrest in the Chinese civil war. We cared veeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrry much what was going on in China. Thats why we were supporting the Republic of China against Communist China. We wanted Japan out because it was in our best interests in China because the Republic of China was mostly fighting Japan so if we could get them out then focus on the civil war there. Read a history book it might help you some.
History books don't give you history. History is written by the winners. That's why when you study the Vietnam war no-one tells you it started in 1962 and the My Lai massacre isn't the first thing taught.
If the US cared so much, why didn't they make Japan pay reparations, something like they made Japan pay to the US?
I don't see you bring much up to change the facts I've presented. Also the My Lai Massacre happened in 1968 not 1962. The war started in 1964. Are you that horrible at collecting information. As for this reparations information you wouldn't happen to be able to have citations for it?
I NEVER said the My Lai massacre happened in 1962, I said the Vietnam War started in 1962.
If the USAF (under Vietnamese markings) at the behest of the President bombs Vietnam, is that considered starting a war? If you think it started in 1964, you are so wrong.
The US attacked Vietnam, completely unprovoked, killing millions (no-one has estimated the Asian dead, yet, interestingly, I know that 58,217 Americans died) and destroying 3 countries, not a PENNY was paid in reparations.
Are you a student of history, because I cannot help but think you aren't. History is written by the winners, but Plinny the Elder was the one who started to make history all about telling the facts and then drawing your conclusions, and that is how history is taught today.
Whoa, that is totally wrong. The US did not support either side in the war. During this time, the US supported a stance of isolationism. That is why there was squandron of American fighters who fought Pro Bono for Republic of China. The Republic of China was focused on fighting the Communist, and it took the kidnapping of Chiang Kaisheck to finally change that policy. It was not until that they CCP and the RoC actually started to work together.
I also highly disagree with the administrations goal of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East. You can't do that in any situation. It has to be a choice of the people and the people have to want that type of government. It's been proven time and time again that democracy is a government that doesn't work there.
Yeah, the dirty Arabs and Muslims just can't handle democracy. Do you realise how racist that is?
How about Afghanistan before the US destabilised the government in 1979? Iran before the 1953 meddling? Or Palestine, where a democratic election was followed by reprimands for voting the wrong way? Or every other Arab or Muslim country where the US has stifled democracy and self-determination?
Yeah, that would be racist if he said it like that. Again, another point of you trying to do the Guilt by association thing. Democracy is far from perfect, but it's not that the Middle East cannot handle it, it is because of sparse populations, lack of natural resource (besides Oil, which is only in the hands of a few), and the global politics that play out in its area.
I gave you examples of democracy, CRUSHED by the US, and you ignore them. What kind of fool are you?
Did democracy in Iran fall apart because they have a "sparse" population? Or whatever other nonsensical excuse you give? Or, maybe, it was because Mossadeq took profits away from the oil companies.
What do you want me to do about the examples you gave? Deny them, they are true, but my points still stand, global politics play a vital importance to the area, exampled by the US intervention of their governments.
I never said they can't handle democracy I simple said they, for the most part, fine with the government they have and don't want to change it. If that is racist then there must be a lot of racists in the world.
Polls are Bullshit. You can tweak the answer by asking the right question. Polls are worth as much as the paper they are printed on. If they are sooooo against there government why haven't they attempted to change it or started a revolution? When will they change there government if they are so against it?
So let's just disregard the scientific evidence and make it up, what a nice answer. Are all polls just wrong?
Do you know how many billions the US gives dictatorships in the Middle East?
It's well understood by Muslims that the US is deterring democracy in their part of the world, although I'm using their answers to polls as my evidence.
That is true, the US actively seeks to keep certain monarchies in power because it is in the best interest of the US, but that is what a government is supposed to do, act in the best interest of their people.
It all depends what you think is the national interest. Is it the people, who will suffer terrorism as a result, or big business, who will gain more and more profits?
If the US people knew even 10% of the crimes committed in their name by propping up these barbarians, do you think they would want to continue it? No. That's why it's kept secret.
Well, a closely guarded secret it is not. The truth is, you are probably right, the people would not like to believe it, but there is also the fact of the matter that people choose to ignore it because they want cheap gas.
What utter nonsense. People prefer the killing of millions, the torture of million, the repression of hundreds of millions to get cheaper gas (I don't agree that they do) rather than letting the Arabs decide for themselves?
You think that Americans, for the most part, are monsters no better than Nazis? You think that if you wish.
What was that internet law, the longer a conversation goes on the more likely someone will be called a Nazi? Lame attempt at empathy, which does not support an argument, just takes away from it.
I do believe American largley ignore the American strategy of keeping abusive monarchies in power. They are not monsters for it, because they do not know the effect it has on the people. Also, your, I am guessing, estimation of millions seems exaggerated.
Millions (dead, I assume) is not exaggerated. In Iraq, it is already ~1 million plus, anything over that is millions, there you are. Now if we look to Afghanistan, no-one knows the casualties but compare with the Soviet Invasion, adjusting for less troops but more firepower, and the figure is in the hundreds of thousands, the Iran-Iraq war was 1.5 million, most of the Iraqi arms were US/Western given, including the WMD Saddam used to gas his own people, etc.
No you just implied that Americans were no better than Nazi's.
You didn't tell me where you got your figures from, you just some figures. If you mean millions all together, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but not millions for this and millions for that. I think those numbers would start to add up.
No I never said the word Nazi, you did. Thus, I never even implied Nazi, you did. Also, if you want to get into semantics, one more person than a million, is still not millions in this case. Millions means plural, as in more than two million, three million, etc.
However, lets not go down this path, it is not really an argument, but a back and forth he said, she said.
I think most people would concede that a person willing to let millions die in pursuit of some money is comparable to a Nazi, however, that is utterly beside the point.
Millions means more than one million (to me, anyway), and, even if it means two, that has been accomplished just in this century, never mind the last.
Just to clear things up, do you or do you not think that the US has killed millions in the Middle East?
Not really since Nazi main goal was ethnic cleansing.
In this conversation Millions meant more than one million.
How far back are we going? Since the invasion of Iraq, in the 20th century? Do I think that the US has killed thousands of people, yes, most definitely. Byproduct of war. Do I think millions, maybe they have made it possible through despotic regimes, but, they have not directly killed millions.
If it's not a secret, then why don't the American people know that the reason Saddam could gas his own people (they of course know that he did) was because the US supplied him with the WMD to do so?
Exactly as it is mean. Some people in the US know that we supplied weapons to Saddam, some don't, and some see our toppling of his government as a way of rectifying a mistake we made.
Rectifying a mistake? That's why the government and the media needed to construct lies about WMD and that Saddam was going to destroy the world imminently? Just based on what the media said, I think that can be disproven.
People in America know a lot less than you do, and a lot less than you think they do. They have no idea the US overthrew democracy in Iran in 1953, or that the US recruited bin Laden and co, or any of the other horrific things done in their name.
I did not say in the past. Yeah, in the begining, the war was sold on an imminent threat that did not exists, but slowly, over the past five years, this has come to like. Scott McClellan for example.
Americans are not as stupid the world seems to think we are. Apathy and stupidity are not one and the same.
I never said you were stupid, and I don't think Americans are apathetic either. I simply think their media is uniform in its Orwellian propagandising.
Polls can't even in the slightest be considered "Scientific evidence". If your using a scientific poll the poll is deceitful because you are only sampling a small portion of the populous. In fact that is the problem with all polls not everyone responds. On top of that you have the thing I brought up earlier. Then there is the thing: So what if the majority wants it does it make it right? No. I'm not saying that democracy in the Middle East would be bad but proving it with polls is bullshit.
Actually I did use a lot of grammar. Note the periods and proper capitalization etc. One error ,wow, that really makes me an intellectual moron. I know what the difference between your and you're is.
You are the real intellectual moron here you can't handle the topic at hand so you attack something trivial to try and end the debate or derail it. I'm glad you won't be responding saves time for me having to deal with your ignorance.
Congrats for me, I don't use that many commas. Earth shattering. Are you going to refute my point about polls anytime soon or are you going to keep dancing? Because if you're just going to dance around go dance with someone else.
Oh come on, get outta the South
chernobleman 9 months ago
The problem is really not with illegal immigrants. The problem is with our socialist trending govt and society, and its accommodation of ridiculous demands by minority groups. Open the borders up completely... but only after you shut off public education, welfare, medicaid, affirmative action, etc. etc. Do we believe in freedom or don't we? If you're for closed borders, you might as well be carrying a union card and socialist party one as well.
kevinjoubert 10 months ago
@kevinjoubert Right on!!!!
darthvega 9 months ago
this is gay
LiLCRIMIXAL3 1 year ago
I'm split on this issue, really. I reject the notion that opposers of amnesty, bilingual education etc. are "racist", but I also see the impracticality of gathering up every illegal alien and shipping them back to Mexico. I also reject the notion that immigration is economically harmful. If these were legal citizens I'd have NO problem whatsoever with them taking a construction job which is open anyway. But allowing our border to remain open is equally impractical, and a solution is needed.
MrUnicorn1995 1 year ago
Gather them all up , and send them back over the fence , if you are here illegally leave..give us back our jobs...
ibelucky1 1 year ago
Fuck you and Your LaRaza you sick fucking wet back! Go the fuck back to your own Country!
orion90ryan 2 years ago 2
Amazing that La Raza tries to claim "This is OUR continent." Oh, really? The Spanish is native to SPAIN, which last time I checked is in Europe. So you better send about half YOUR family back, too. If Whites didn't come to America, there would be nothing for them to desire because it would still look like the rest of Latin America does today, and we've seen how desperate Latinos are to leave the fruits of what they've sewn there.
EdwardJellico 2 years ago 5
@EdwardJellico No one sews fruit, because sewing fruit would be messy.
hovawart16 1 year ago
@EdwardJellico I absolutely DETEST when multiculturalism advocates say that! It's an unabashedly race driven and historically illiterate claim. The Spanish were the first to conquer land in the New World... and over 90% of Mexico' population is AT LEAST partially Spanish.
MrUnicorn1995 1 year ago
When I was at a tea party there was booth called the NAAWP.
lionfoxxx 2 years ago
The thing is, is that European Americans can not go back. What country would I go back to, and what country would take me. Germany, England, Italy, Ireland? This is the only country many white Americans have. So we better take good care of it. Also it is the only country for the indigenous people of this continent. Mexicans are not pure indigenous people, plus they have a democratic country just south of here that they could go fix. Don't they what to even live in Mexico, and be Mexican?
09bassman 2 years ago 4
Race over nation bad? RACE IS NATION! WHITE AMERICA IS AMERICA.
kwazi6 2 years ago
It is time for the South to reclaim its independence from the socialist American Empire
SouthernNationalist 2 years ago 4
No wonder America has become a giant debtor nation. We couldn't even afford the cost of our military being the self-appointed policeman to the world. Now we are allowing all these illegal alien invaders to make us the welfare system of the world, so that we are evolving into the prison system of the whole world.
lolamom2 3 years ago 7
Way to go South Carolina. I wish other states would follow your leadership. Especially Texas
raykmond 3 years ago 11
I'm an immigrant, and I came here the LEGAL way. I spit on those who try to cut in line!
PROUD TO BE A U.S. CITIZEN!!!
Doctorate 3 years ago 14
FUCK YOU! GO BACK TO WHERE YOU BELONG.
kwazi6 2 years ago
You mean Panama? Sure thing! At least it's summer year-round. Good thing I have dual-citizenship, eh? XD
annie4horses 2 years ago
All things aside, don't u think having dual-citizenship is rediculous and an insult to all citizens of every country?
kwazi6 2 years ago
"All things aside, don't u think having dual-citizenship is rediculous and an insult to all citizens of every country?"
Hmmm, I am not sure what you are getting at here. Could you further elaborate please?
annie4horses 2 years ago
Citizenship of a country is a precious thing that is worth bleeding and sacrificing for. My forefathers suffered for it. Why do you have dual-citizenship? How did u get it? Are u a panamanian or an American? Does it depend on what side of the fukn bed u wake up on!
kwazi6 2 years ago
I am both.
Why are you so curious to know as to how I obtained my status as a dual-citizen?
annie4horses 2 years ago
I'm a secret agent.
kwazi6 2 years ago
Good, so did I. Never back down and be proud to be an American.
ed2point0 2 years ago
come to american soil the LEGAL WAY! and you will be accepted with open arms, other than that LEAVE! thats it nothing else to say. plain, simple to understand. if here illegaly then you have commited a crime, you should be arrested and deported, also simple, and plain to understand. this has nothing to do with racism or anything like that so dont go there.
wgm72 3 years ago 5
Great Vid .5 stars
Bassfooler 3 years ago
euros were here first.
first-americans . blogspot . com
go back to asia, retards.
btw even penon women is closest to a european and she is the first mexican.
peace0ff 3 years ago
I just heard that Lindsey Graham won against that orthodontist. Boo hoo!
GaGirlie777 3 years ago
I do not see how anyone has the right to tell me who I may or may not pay to do a specific task for me. Freedom to contract, freedom of association, and the property rights those stem from, are all violated by such legislation upon employers.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
You may like the cheap labor. But Illegals cost all of us through subsidies paid for by your's and my taxes. You may save a few bucks but it isn't fair that you cost me and everyone else.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
And I oppose those subsidies and handouts. I oppose any form of theft and robbery, especially those forms accepted as common place and established such as that for of robbery called government.
Do not assault the immigrant for being the recipient of the spoils of robbers who pilfer your purse, assault the robber himself! End his tyrannical robbery and subsequent spending spree and the moths drawn to that flame, finding the flame snuffed out, will soon disperse
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
If you are hiring illegals then you are a criminal and a traitor. You are the problem. You are taking advantage of the poor simply to line your greed pockets. Like it or not taxes are a necessary evil. And an advantage to every citizen.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
How can I betray something I never pledged loyalty to? How can it be criminal to hire someone without your permission?
How can I take advantage of a man who voluntarily works for me? If I have wheat and you have corn and we trade it is because you value the wheat more than the corn and vica versa. Both of us profit. Mutual benefit is achieved.
Taxes are no more necessary than being commonly mugged on a regular basis. I fail to see the advantage of being forced to fund a organization I despise.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Maybe traitor was a but harsh. Criminal because there are laws prohibiting it with in the US borders which you live(I assume)Like it or not we need laws. Taking advantage of his lack of advantage because he is a illegal. Were there no illegals you would have to pay a decent wage. He works for shit because he has to, not by choice. There's no negotiation involved. Taxes pay for roads, schools, police, government in general. Without which anarchy would ensue. If you hate it here. why are you here?
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
RAPSUCKS1738:
law does not need to come from a central agency that monopolizes law and justice.
There is no such thing as a objectively 'decent' wage unless you ascribe to some sort of labor theory of value, which I do not. Do you consider that minimum wage laws are what give him this advantage over other workers in the first place?
taxes are robbery. whatever is purchased with them does not change that fact. I very much hope that anarchy (not chaos) WOULD ensue
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Thorsmitersaw "I very much hope that anarchy (not chaos) WOULD ensue"
And chaos would soon follow
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
You clearly have no idea about Anarchism, or a very dim view of it.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
A government is a benefit to a land. It gets everyone headed in the same direction.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
I know of no Anarchist who thinks "taxes are robbery." You aren't one of those "market anarchists" are you?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I doubt the truth of this statement. I have yet to meet an anarchist who does not see that taxes are indeed robbery writ large. I fail to see the relation to me being a market anarchist.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
You are no anarchist.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I want you to find me one "anarchist" who sees taxes as anything but robbery. As anything but positive law (which is entirely the opposite of negative liberty and anarchism) and theft at its base.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
If taxes are stealing, the old age pensioners will die in poverty, by the millions, children will die because of lack of healthcare and lots more. Anyone who wants to get rid of all taxes is a monster, although they might not know it.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
anyone who supports government solutions to problems it creates is a monster.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 2
Anyone who looks at the before and after statistics of 65+ poverty in respect to the introductions of state pensions and still comes to the conclusion they are a bad idea is so ideologically indoctrinated they aren't worth conversing with.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
anyone who derives causation from correlation is a jackass.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Question for thorsmitersaw:
Would you fire your brother and hire a stranger at half the price, all other variables being equal?
2minuteh8 3 years ago
Probably not, unless my brother was a lousy worker. But this does not seem related.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
my point is that even an ancap would pay a premium to hire a kinsman. the size of that premium would depend on the proximity of the kinship. if your perception of kin-group extends to your nation (as it does for many, if not most, americans) you view the hiring of "foreigners" by your countrymen as a betrayal. when RAPSUCKS1738 called you a traitor, he meant it. am i making sense?
2minuteh8 3 years ago
Somewhat. But this is hardly any case against private property rights or the liberty to freely associate with whom one pleases.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
It is if you're counting on your neighbors' help in defending your life, liberty, and property. By yourself, you wouldn't be able to protect those things from a troop of determined girl scouts. Some things HAVE to be done as a collective. All primates organize themselves into groups which collectively defend, and monopolize the resources of, a territory. Strip away the ideologies and other window-dressing, and we're not much different from a troop of baboons.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
you are confusing organization with forced organization. Believe it or not, men do not need to be prodded, threatened, tortured, or otherwise coerced into organizing for their own benefit. Perhaps if you knew anything about economics or just walked to your local 711 you would realize this.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Economic determinism is a meme that libertarians have borrowed from Marx. Do you think you can offer me enough money to sell my children, or sell out my countrymen? Think again. Family, clan, tribe, nation, language, shared history and values, mindset, common standards of behavior and morality, ad infinitum; these things matter.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
economic determinism is something that is completely lacking in Austrian economic theory (which a large number of libertarians adopt), which just goes to show your own ignorance.
the facts are as follows:
You want to force others to do what you say regardless of choice.
You want to force others to pay money to a gang of criminals that you find a "necessary" evil.
And you feel that your own subjective preferences for hiring persons X with traits Y is grounds to force everyone else to as well.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Economic determinism isn't a school of economics, it's a historical theory. Marxists are radical collectivists (group rights). Libertarians are radical individualists (individual rights). Both see people as deracinated, interchangeable units - motivated, aside from their "rights," by economic considerations alone. Both trivialize or ignore; biology, tradition, family, faith, culture, nation, and race. Both are childishly simplistic. Both are wrong.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
The term; economic determinism, may have connotations in addition to the one I intended - the tendency to reduce all causality in society to one single factor. Economic reductionism might express that definition more unequivocally. I hope that helps.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
I see the importation of third world slave labor as the first step in ethnic cleansing. It is an attack on my economic, cultural, and genetic interests. I am willing to respond to aggression with every means at my disposal, up to and including force.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
I can hardly call hiring a man under the table slave labor, or allowing little brown people to live near me "ethnic cleansing". Your definition of force seems so broad only to justify your own ACTUAL use of force.
what would you say to taking this to video format in the place of this textual seesaw for the entertainment of others and easement of discourse?
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Yep. It's called socialization of costs and privatization of profits. You get all the advantages of chattel slavery without the expenses. The greatest swindle ever invented.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
"socialization of costs"
enabled by your beloved state
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
"your beloved state"
Hardly. I consider the state a "necessary evil" with a handful of legitimate functions. Preventing invasions, civilian or military, is at the top of my short list.
2minuteh8 3 years ago
those who consider evil necessary promote evil.
there are alternatives that can and have existed to replace state as provider of security and plenty of economic analysis and theory to back that claim up.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
"plenty of economic analysis and theory"
I'm sure there is - but will any of it work? ;]
2minuteh8 3 years ago
Great video! Nicely done.
BorislavX 3 years ago
This is true, but the Federal Government has a history of keeping people out of the US because they find them undesirable. Chinese Exclusion Act for instance. However, because we live in a culture that has become more culturally aware, because minorities wield greater political power, the government is slow to act on the open borders, which is really sad, because I am a third generation American on both sides of my parents, and I don't identify with Mexican culture.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Unforunately, it seems many people confuse culture with race. For example, look at the diversity of Europe. A lot of white people with different cultures.
FateEternal 3 years ago
That is not a good example because Europe warred for centuries over their trival differences and territorial disputes, and Europe still has a lot of problems with countries that are really poor.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Well, the point was that one race can have more than one culture; not about -how- they got those cultures. :) So just because someone doesn't like a culture, doesn't necessarily mean he/she is racist. So that's like if someone were to say that white Europeans are racist towards themselves because they don't like another white group's culture; it wouldn't make sense to refer to it as "racism" since they're the same race. :)
FateEternal 3 years ago
Actually, that is still not true. Irish, which are white, have for centuries been looked down upon because they were thought of as subhuman because of their culture. Racism exists everywhere, it is just the extent to which people are willing to show it.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
They're still the same race, though. Although the "subhuman" part can be similar to racism.
FateEternal 3 years ago
Your in favor of open borders!!!! just what do you think would happen were the borders open?
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
I am not in favor of open borders, if this is directed at me.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Mark Sanford was at Bilderberg this year, very interesting.
banemaler 3 years ago
Congrats on 100 videos!
banemaler 3 years ago
What makes anyone think that pour immigration policy should be anything less than a benefit to the US is beyond me.I really don't see the advantage to the US of importing more poor low skilled, low educated workers into the US. Taxpayers give nearly $20,000 to our poor in benefits and welfare. Why should we make it harder on the poor we already have. If they would pay a decent wage for those jobs which americans supposedly won't do I bet americans would do them.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago 2
Higher wages go to more skilled work. A housekeeper does not, and rightfully should not, make as much money as computer tech, nurse, etc. Fruit picking and construction need workers who will work in the sun long hours, with few breaks, for little money. The American hegemony was built upon the backs of unskilled workers and laborers.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
"Skilled?"
Like a CEO earning more money than he could possibly dream of spending, plus bonuses? I think the woman on a pittance cleaning his office, getting up early and going home late, is a more skilled worker and certainly deserves more compensation for her time.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
How skilled? Given the CEO has the advantage of being able to uses his means to gain the upper hand in the education and many other areas. Regardless though who really is more skilled? If you were to put the very things that employees look for regardless of race. Even still she isn't doomed to the bottom for life ether.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
Well what you think and reality are not one and the same. It doesn't matter that the CEO is making more money than they possibly need, this is the capitalistic system in which we live, deal with it. Secondly, this CEO had to go to college to get his degree in order to make his life what it is, while the worker might be less than able to chart a companies economic growth.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
CompleteLoser you wrote "this is the capitalistic system in which we live,"
True that is why employers should have to pay what it cost to get a LEGAL CITIZEN to do that work. Labor cost are a commodity that are no different than gas or anything else.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago 2
Actually, what you are suggesting are completely at odds with the Capitalistic system. The whole idea of capitalism is to do things cheaper and better. Employers should pay as little as possible, but Americans have become extremely satiated in their wants and demands. Higher wages means higher prices and Americans do not want that. That is why we have Lead filled products out China, child run sweatshops, and immigrants pouring over the borders to fill jobs that are low paying.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Are you suggesting that there wouldn't be lead filled products and child sweat shops here if your definition of capitalism were the norm? If labor isn't a commodity and wages are at a minimum who will by their products? The whole idea of capitalism is to give incentives for people to produce. It works because people have a chance to get ahead and better themselves. Driving down their wages takes that incentive away.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
No, I am suggesting that if we were in a purely Capitalistic system, then there would be this all the time, however, we don't. Labor is a commodity, but wages are negotiable. Illegals are using their labor just as Americans are, but they are selling it for less, because Americans want higher wages, and thus are undercut. It is called Globalism, and like it or not, we are stuck in the middle of it.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
You're suggesting is the most pointless ever proposed, a "pure Capitalist" system of free markets will never, ever be realised, it only works in an imaginary world.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Not true, early 20th century/late 19th say the rise of Laisze Faire Capitalism, if that wasn't pure capitalism, I don't know what it was.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
You're an idiot, you can't even spell laissez-faire.
Who built the railways in the US, not the private sector, they were too stupid, the army had to be called upon. And protectionism was extreme in the early 20th century, why do you think the Japanese bombed Pear Harbour, because they wanted to pick a fight with the most powerful country in the world?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Attacking my spelling is not a way to win an argument, number one.
Secondly, the railways in the United States were largely built by the Chinese, illegal Chinese migrants at that. They worked for less than the Americans and worked harder.
Also, Japan did attack the United States mainly out of Imperialism, not just because of Protectionism. No economically rich country in the world has gotten that way through Free Trade first, Protectionism is the way to go. Perry Expedition, look it up.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
The Chinese weren't "illegal Chinese migrants," they were kidnapped foreign civilians - a form of slavery.
The US closed off its markets to Japan, because Japanese products were superior (much like the 1980s), and as a result Pearl Harbour was bombed in December of 1941.
I know that protectionism is how all the major economies developed, that is my point.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
What I think you are referring to is Coolie Labor. Some were kidnapped, some volunteered, not realizing what they were getting into, but many Chinese immigrated here illegally. Illegally with the United States, and their own government.
Japan attacked because of Imperialism mainly.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
There were many targets for Japan, all of whom less awesome than the United States of America, it is an insult to claim they attacked mainly out of imperialism.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
No it is the truth. Japan was harbored resentment towards the United States since the Perry Expedition, when the US forced Japan's doors open. Japan imperial empire was quickly stretching across Asia; China, Russia, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. Japan believed they were superior to other races. It is called the Sino-centric world view.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Sniff some more of that glue for me, Mr. I Invent History!
Downfacingdog 3 years ago
Where have I been wrong at?
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Where haven't you...
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
That is not a real answer. It is an attempt to defeat the question using absurdity instead of real reason and logic.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Answer me this, did the US close its markets to Japan?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I am not totally sure, but I am more than willing to bet they didn't. After WWII, the United States had a hegemony, and thus wanted free trade in the world. Closing their markets to foreign countries would not make sense.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
You really are stupid, they wanted free trade for everyone else and high tariffs and subsidies for themselves. What do you think GATT and the WTO were for?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Resorting to petty name calling is a sure fire way to lose a discussion. I admitted that I didn't know, thus calling me stupid for trying to deduce it out is ignorant at best and lazy at worst. The US continuously calls for free trade because that is what best benefits them, the WTO forces open markets to the US but markets such as Brazil cannot compete with US products, and thus, they don't have much weight in our economy.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
The US calls for free trade, but it doesn't WANT free trade. It wants liberalisation for the poor countries but subsidies and protective tariffs for itself.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Yes it did in oil. The US put an embargo on Japan for its aggressive imperial actions in China.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
You believe that if you want. Maybe you also believe invading Iraq was because Saddam had WMD and Bush wanted to bring freedom and democracy to his people.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
And I would suggest the same for you. That was the whole point of the embargo which was also supported by the UK and other Western nations. The whole point of it was to stifle Japans attacks in China and force them to stop. What they didn't see coming was Japan in order to continue the war directly seizing the resources it needed. I also don't believe in the Iraq war was a good idea but I also do believe we are responsible to stabilize the damage caused.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
No, it wasn't. The West couldn't care less about what Japan was doing to China, that's why Japan was forced to pay reparations for crimes after the 7th of December 1941 and not before.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Yes they did care about what Japan was doing in the East because they were afraid their Imperialism would spread to the United States.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
I mean really, do you just believe what the US leaders tell you unquestioningly?
I gave you evidence, you dismiss it out of hand by saying, "My leader said so, it must be the case!" You couldn't get any better from a North Korean propagandist.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Oh thankyou, you have open my eyes to the truth. America bad, thankyou, now I can go on living my life because you have shown me the way. Thankyou, my simple mind has been cleared thanks to your brillance. Despite the fact that I have spent the last two years intensively studying Asian history, and I wrote my senior thesis about Chinese global politics.
Again, thankyou for showing me the light. I will never trust the awful US government again.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
You trusted the US government in the first place?
Do you disagree with my facts? Not what I draw from them, just the facts.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Yes I trust the government, but I am also not some paranoid freak who thinks that all the actions of the government are to disparage certain groups of people.
No I don't disagree with your facts, I haven't since we have begun this who delienation into ball busting, just your conclusions from them. You give importance to thoughts and ideas that I think are less important.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
States have only their interest at heart, not anyone else's, thinking anything but that is a delusion.
You wouldn't hesitate to think that about the Soviet Union, yet you give the US some special pass.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I was barely alive during the years of the Soviet Union, but you are right, I wouldn't put it past the Soviet Union to pull some horrible stunts, but that is because they have a long history of it. You seem to think that I believe the US is perfect, no one is, nothing is, and believe me, I don't give a pass to the US, but would I like to live anywehre else? No, not really.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
What about the long history of the US? George Washington wasn't called the "Town Destroyer" for no reason. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and the list goes on. The US is no different than the Soviet Union, it just happens to be better to its own citizens.
What does liking to live in a country and thoughts on its actions abroad have to do with each other?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Then you have contradicted yourself, because if the US government only cared for itself, it would not bother treating its citizens with any kind of kindness at all. BTW, all countries are have problems.
I am making a point of about the evils of the US. They do bad, but even so, I still love living here, not because it is perfect, but because of the freedoms and standard of living I am afforded.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
The US government does not want to treat its citizens with any kindness, it is forced to. People cause problems for their government, and it is forced to change or be changed. How do you think social security was implemented, a gift from above?
I like living in the UK, does it mean I look away when my country does bad things, no. Does it mean I want to leave because I know it does bad things, no. My comment is not on the standard of living in the country, not is it on the people.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Then how do you explain despotic regimes lasting for so long?
Also, Social Security grew out of the Great Depression, and FDR believe that the government should take care of its citizens instead of letting them die in the streets.
I find it suspect that you would lecture me on US history, when you live in the UK, and are not a history major. Though you are well versed for fairness sake.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Your first question is so silly, explain to me how slavery lasted so long? If slavery was so bad, why wasn't it thrown out earlier? Your measurement is a poor one. Also, there was a revolution in Iran, an attempted one in Iraq in 1991 - the US didn't give the generals the captured Iraqi weapons they asked for, so they died.
On Social Security, if the people hadn't organised into movements and caused a ruckus, do you think FDR would have simply given them Social Security and unemployment anyway?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
no one is given social security or unemployment we pay tax for that. Shows what you know.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
I was referring to how the Welfare State was created...
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
You can't blame FDR for the welfare state. That is congress's fault. SS was never intended to be used for everything that it is. From the 60's on congress seems to have lost their fucking mind. LOL Ted Kennedy is to blame for a lot of it. Chain migration being one of his better ideas (sarcasm)
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
The Welfare State is the people's fault, their direct action formed it.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
That was meant to be "unemployment benefit" and not "unemployment."
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
We had a vested intrest in the Chinese civil war. We cared veeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrry much what was going on in China. Thats why we were supporting the Republic of China against Communist China. We wanted Japan out because it was in our best interests in China because the Republic of China was mostly fighting Japan so if we could get them out then focus on the civil war there. Read a history book it might help you some.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
History books don't give you history. History is written by the winners. That's why when you study the Vietnam war no-one tells you it started in 1962 and the My Lai massacre isn't the first thing taught.
If the US cared so much, why didn't they make Japan pay reparations, something like they made Japan pay to the US?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I don't see you bring much up to change the facts I've presented. Also the My Lai Massacre happened in 1968 not 1962. The war started in 1964. Are you that horrible at collecting information. As for this reparations information you wouldn't happen to be able to have citations for it?
purplecharger88 3 years ago
I NEVER said the My Lai massacre happened in 1962, I said the Vietnam War started in 1962.
If the USAF (under Vietnamese markings) at the behest of the President bombs Vietnam, is that considered starting a war? If you think it started in 1964, you are so wrong.
The US attacked Vietnam, completely unprovoked, killing millions (no-one has estimated the Asian dead, yet, interestingly, I know that 58,217 Americans died) and destroying 3 countries, not a PENNY was paid in reparations.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Are you a student of history, because I cannot help but think you aren't. History is written by the winners, but Plinny the Elder was the one who started to make history all about telling the facts and then drawing your conclusions, and that is how history is taught today.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
I like history, however, I do science at university.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Whoa, that is totally wrong. The US did not support either side in the war. During this time, the US supported a stance of isolationism. That is why there was squandron of American fighters who fought Pro Bono for Republic of China. The Republic of China was focused on fighting the Communist, and it took the kidnapping of Chiang Kaisheck to finally change that policy. It was not until that they CCP and the RoC actually started to work together.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Support either side in which war, I'm not sure I mentioned anything about what you are talking about, please clarify.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
It was not directed at you.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Oh, alright.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I also highly disagree with the administrations goal of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East. You can't do that in any situation. It has to be a choice of the people and the people have to want that type of government. It's been proven time and time again that democracy is a government that doesn't work there.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
Yeah, the dirty Arabs and Muslims just can't handle democracy. Do you realise how racist that is?
How about Afghanistan before the US destabilised the government in 1979? Iran before the 1953 meddling? Or Palestine, where a democratic election was followed by reprimands for voting the wrong way? Or every other Arab or Muslim country where the US has stifled democracy and self-determination?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Yeah, that would be racist if he said it like that. Again, another point of you trying to do the Guilt by association thing. Democracy is far from perfect, but it's not that the Middle East cannot handle it, it is because of sparse populations, lack of natural resource (besides Oil, which is only in the hands of a few), and the global politics that play out in its area.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
I gave you examples of democracy, CRUSHED by the US, and you ignore them. What kind of fool are you?
Did democracy in Iran fall apart because they have a "sparse" population? Or whatever other nonsensical excuse you give? Or, maybe, it was because Mossadeq took profits away from the oil companies.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
What do you want me to do about the examples you gave? Deny them, they are true, but my points still stand, global politics play a vital importance to the area, exampled by the US intervention of their governments.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
If democracy can't exist why do polls consistently show overwhelming support for it in the region?
Why can the whites get along in democracies but the Arabs and Muslims not?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I did not say that democracy could not exist, I am giving historical reasons why the area has largely been a source for changing of hands.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
"[D]emocracy is a government that doesn't work there."
That's saying democracy could not exist.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I am fairly positive I did not say that, in fact, I cannot even find that on this page.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
That's because beatlemaniac reads what he wants to in a post.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
You're right, it was another person. Whoops.
However, the US has been opposed to all forms of democracy in the Middle East, ever. This is a proven fact.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I never said they can't handle democracy I simple said they, for the most part, fine with the government they have and don't want to change it. If that is racist then there must be a lot of racists in the world.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
Really, Saudis are fine? Iranians are fine?
You are the most ludicrous person I have ever come into contact with in my entire life, look at some polls once in a while.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Polls are Bullshit. You can tweak the answer by asking the right question. Polls are worth as much as the paper they are printed on. If they are sooooo against there government why haven't they attempted to change it or started a revolution? When will they change there government if they are so against it?
purplecharger88 3 years ago
So let's just disregard the scientific evidence and make it up, what a nice answer. Are all polls just wrong?
Do you know how many billions the US gives dictatorships in the Middle East?
It's well understood by Muslims that the US is deterring democracy in their part of the world, although I'm using their answers to polls as my evidence.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
That is true, the US actively seeks to keep certain monarchies in power because it is in the best interest of the US, but that is what a government is supposed to do, act in the best interest of their people.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
It all depends what you think is the national interest. Is it the people, who will suffer terrorism as a result, or big business, who will gain more and more profits?
If the US people knew even 10% of the crimes committed in their name by propping up these barbarians, do you think they would want to continue it? No. That's why it's kept secret.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Well, a closely guarded secret it is not. The truth is, you are probably right, the people would not like to believe it, but there is also the fact of the matter that people choose to ignore it because they want cheap gas.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
What utter nonsense. People prefer the killing of millions, the torture of million, the repression of hundreds of millions to get cheaper gas (I don't agree that they do) rather than letting the Arabs decide for themselves?
You think that Americans, for the most part, are monsters no better than Nazis? You think that if you wish.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
What was that internet law, the longer a conversation goes on the more likely someone will be called a Nazi? Lame attempt at empathy, which does not support an argument, just takes away from it.
I do believe American largley ignore the American strategy of keeping abusive monarchies in power. They are not monsters for it, because they do not know the effect it has on the people. Also, your, I am guessing, estimation of millions seems exaggerated.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
I didn't call you a Nazi.
Millions (dead, I assume) is not exaggerated. In Iraq, it is already ~1 million plus, anything over that is millions, there you are. Now if we look to Afghanistan, no-one knows the casualties but compare with the Soviet Invasion, adjusting for less troops but more firepower, and the figure is in the hundreds of thousands, the Iran-Iraq war was 1.5 million, most of the Iraqi arms were US/Western given, including the WMD Saddam used to gas his own people, etc.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
No you just implied that Americans were no better than Nazi's.
You didn't tell me where you got your figures from, you just some figures. If you mean millions all together, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but not millions for this and millions for that. I think those numbers would start to add up.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
No, I said YOU implied that, and if I were to take your assumptions I'd think that too - I don't.
ORB say 1 million Iraqis, so one person more means millions, there is no dispute.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
No I never said the word Nazi, you did. Thus, I never even implied Nazi, you did. Also, if you want to get into semantics, one more person than a million, is still not millions in this case. Millions means plural, as in more than two million, three million, etc.
However, lets not go down this path, it is not really an argument, but a back and forth he said, she said.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
I think most people would concede that a person willing to let millions die in pursuit of some money is comparable to a Nazi, however, that is utterly beside the point.
Millions means more than one million (to me, anyway), and, even if it means two, that has been accomplished just in this century, never mind the last.
Just to clear things up, do you or do you not think that the US has killed millions in the Middle East?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Not really since Nazi main goal was ethnic cleansing.
In this conversation Millions meant more than one million.
How far back are we going? Since the invasion of Iraq, in the 20th century? Do I think that the US has killed thousands of people, yes, most definitely. Byproduct of war. Do I think millions, maybe they have made it possible through despotic regimes, but, they have not directly killed millions.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Iraq and Afghanistan? The invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What about all the weapons they sold, does that not count as direct killing?
Even if that is not the case, they have reached millions in the last century, without a shadow of a doubt.
Do you think the US should continue to kill, torture and repress millions in pursuit of cheap oil?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
If it's not a secret, then why don't the American people know that the reason Saddam could gas his own people (they of course know that he did) was because the US supplied him with the WMD to do so?
One of a plethora of examples.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Many do, many don't care, and many see it as rectifying a problem they themselvs caused.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Clarify please, I'm lost as to what you mean.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Exactly as it is mean. Some people in the US know that we supplied weapons to Saddam, some don't, and some see our toppling of his government as a way of rectifying a mistake we made.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
Rectifying a mistake? That's why the government and the media needed to construct lies about WMD and that Saddam was going to destroy the world imminently? Just based on what the media said, I think that can be disproven.
People in America know a lot less than you do, and a lot less than you think they do. They have no idea the US overthrew democracy in Iran in 1953, or that the US recruited bin Laden and co, or any of the other horrific things done in their name.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I did not say in the past. Yeah, in the begining, the war was sold on an imminent threat that did not exists, but slowly, over the past five years, this has come to like. Scott McClellan for example.
Americans are not as stupid the world seems to think we are. Apathy and stupidity are not one and the same.
CompleteLoser 3 years ago
I never said you were stupid, and I don't think Americans are apathetic either. I simply think their media is uniform in its Orwellian propagandising.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Polls can't even in the slightest be considered "Scientific evidence". If your using a scientific poll the poll is deceitful because you are only sampling a small portion of the populous. In fact that is the problem with all polls not everyone responds. On top of that you have the thing I brought up earlier. Then there is the thing: So what if the majority wants it does it make it right? No. I'm not saying that democracy in the Middle East would be bad but proving it with polls is bullshit.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
What an idiot you are. You use no grammar and you don't know the difference between you're and your (you're is short for you are).
You are so idiotic I can't see any point in properly responding.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Actually I did use a lot of grammar. Note the periods and proper capitalization etc. One error ,wow, that really makes me an intellectual moron. I know what the difference between your and you're is.
You are the real intellectual moron here you can't handle the topic at hand so you attack something trivial to try and end the debate or derail it. I'm glad you won't be responding saves time for me having to deal with your ignorance.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
You are still using absolutely zero commas - fool.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Try again there was two in there. You're not even good at being a post whoring grammar Nazi.
purplecharger88 3 years ago
LMAO
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
I was responding to your previous post, however, there is still a distinct lack of commas in all of your posts.
I'm sure the families of the victims of Hitler and the Nazis agree with you in your casual use of 'Nazi' to describe a misdemeanour so insignificant.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Congrats for me, I don't use that many commas. Earth shattering. Are you going to refute my point about polls anytime soon or are you going to keep dancing? Because if you're just going to dance around go dance with someone else.
purplecharger88 3 years ago