BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
The funny thing is how shitty recent immigrants can be toward other immigrants. I admit this freely. We used to make fun of all those first-wave Cubans who bitch and say about all the other immigrants to Miami, in badly broken English I might add, "Hey, learn the languich!"
My kind also has the problem of dragging around with us all of the problems of the shithole countries from whence we came.
Your rum sucks. English speaking Jamaicans make way better rum. Rule Britannia pendejo.
We are no longer friends.
Trader Vic said you have to use Jamaican rum for Mai Tai's . It's more funky with notes of banana and butter. Cuban style rum goes better with coke and lime juice, of course, but that's lazy man's cocktail.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
For the most part agree with this. I can see what OBK is saying until he veers into the "Keep it Eurocentric" shit. We should have a strong defensible border. We should focus on merit based immigration based on Yellows economic benefit plan mentioned above. We should deport people who are here illegally and committing crimes. Beyond that though, not much else to say. There is nothing racist about standards for immigration.
But any kind of ethnopurity shit sounds blatantly racist, whether it is intended or not. "Keep America White Again" is not a good look. Especially since I hate white people.
OBK is taped to the peddles on that point. He's been consistent about it from the beginning. He just finally got called out for it this weekend and won't yield, but instead tried the old rhetoric of changing the subject and turning it around.
He failed miserably, got scapled and lost his soul. I do not shed a tear.
Some good came out of it though. I'm back as a Husky and have returned to wishing nothing but ill and misery to the ducks. Feels good to be back with my own kind.
Besides, my boyfriend and his Criscoballz will be done with the white trash in Eugene soon enough and will journey home to resurrect a Miami program that just lost to FIU and lost at sea.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
For the most part agree with this. I can see what OBK is saying until he veers into the "Keep it Eurocentric" shit. We should have a strong defensible border. We should focus on merit based immigration based on Yellows economic benefit plan mentioned above. We should deport people who are here illegally and committing crimes. Beyond that though, not much else to say. There is nothing racist about standards for immigration.
But any kind of ethnopurity shit sounds blatantly racist, whether it is intended or not. "Keep America White Again" is not a good look. Especially since I hate white people.
OBK is taped to the peddles on that point. He's been consistent about it from the beginning. He just finally got called out for it this weekend and won't yield, but instead tried the old rhetoric of changing the subject and turning it around.
He failed miserably, got scapled and lost his soul. I do not shed a tear.
Some good came out of it though. I'm back as a Husky and have returned to wishing nothing but ill and misery to the ducks. Feels good to be back with my own kind.
Besides, my boyfriend and his Criscoballz will be done with the white trash in Eugene soon enough and will journey home to resurrect a Miami program that just lost to FIU and lost at sea.
My kind also has the problem of dragging around with us all of the problems of the shithole countries from whence we came.
Your rum sucks. English speaking Jamaicans make way better rum. Rule Britannia pendejo.
We are no longer friends.
Trader Vic said you have to use Jamaican rum for Mai Tai's . It's more funky with notes of banana and butter. Cuban style rum goes better with coke and lime juice, of course, but that's lazy man's cocktail.
Is Trader Vic the one who said put blue curacao in Mai Tais? Several years ago I tried some "original" formula and felt like all I succeeded in doing was reinventing cough syrup
He used the original version of curacao which is drier and more intense on the orange than triple sec. Not the shitty blue, fake curacao you see in the stores today.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
All very fair points. Most of these are resolved with your reminder about selective immigration. As I've maintained from the beginning, who could be for anything but legal immigration?
Your point about Islam is also very fair, and I don't have a clean answer for you. People who come here have to respect that separation. But the challenge there is that we have homegrown people who don't respect it. Many, in fact. So there's that.
I myself do not believe for one minute that the ideal of pursuing liberty and freedom to make your own way in the American tradition is anything to do with Europe. I think it's inherent in all human beings to year to be free from overlords.
Don't forget that the last standing monarchy of any real significance stands in our closest European ally, and that the concepts of socialism and communism were cooked up in that most trouble making of European countries, Germania. Don't forget those two points. To date, the largest experiments in communism have taken place on the Asian continent.
The greatest expression of liberty is journey to, and arrival at, HERE, of people running away from all that shit. It's not just limited to the English.
In the end, it is folly to think that a bunch of people are going to come here with some sneaky idea and flip the country. It's harder to do that than it sounds on HCH. It takes a lot of time and focus, and what tends to happen in real life is that people get here, they get used to it, they get used to the standard of living and they lose their allegiance and love for where they came from. And their kids assimilate even faster and in one generation, BOOM! You have Americans.
If they change anything, it will be over time with the full participation of the people already here, including OBK's relatives in the trailer park if they want to get up and vote.
No "wave" of immigrants is going to come here and flip this country into something it doesn't want to be as part of some orchestrated scheme.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
All very fair points. Most of these are resolved with your reminder about selective immigration. As I've maintained from the beginning, who could be for anything but legal immigration?
Your point about Islam is also very fair, and I don't have a clean answer for you. People who come here have to respect that separation. But the challenge there is that we have homegrown people who don't respect it. Many, in fact. So there's that.
I myself do not believe for one minute that the ideal of pursuing liberty and freedom to make your own way in the American tradition is anything to do with Europe. I think it's inherent in all human beings to year to be free from overlords.
Don't forget that the last standing monarchy of any real significance stands in our closest European ally, and that the concepts of socialism and communism were cooked up in that most trouble making of European countries, Germania. Don't forget those two points. To date, the largest experiments in communism have taken place on the Asian continent.
The greatest expression of liberty is journey to, and arrival at, HERE, of people running away from all that shit. It's not just limited to the English.
In the end, it is folly to think that a bunch of people are going to come here with some sneaky idea and flip the country. It's harder to do that than it sounds on HCH. It takes a lot of time and focus, and what tends to happen in real life is that people get here, they get used to it, they get used to the standard of living and they lose their allegiance and love for where they came from. And their kids assimilate even faster and in one generation, BOOM! You have Americans.
If they change anything, it will be over time with the full participation of the people already here, including OBK's relatives in the trailer park if they want to get up and vote.
No "wave" of immigrants is going to come here and flip this country into something it doesn't want to be as part of some orchestrated scheme.
There's a very real argument to be made that waves of immigrants are what made our government more centralized and federal in nature. "Irish politics".
The old school answer is that liberty and freedom are "universal" but this post modern multipolar world doesn't necessarily confirm that. Why are peoples of the world not clamoring for free markets and democracy with the rise of the information age?
It's not that crazy to trade votes for "open borders" policy and handouts. I tend to agree that "American" culture is fairly massive in its inertia and won't simply be replaced in a generation though.
I completely agree with you how can anyone be for anything but legal immigration? Yet, we have a large part of the Democratic Party who run that policy even if they hide it with double speak.
I like creep I suppose. I just don’t want his kind to be the majority.
But how is OBK a racist?
Try selling your social justice warrior logic in countries like China, Russia, India, Japan, etc., most countries in the world, you would be laughed out like the idiot that you are. It's RACIST to oppose open borders and the displacement of your people with foreigners.
Those countries all suck compared to us economically. Maybe we have the highest GDP per capita - rather easily- of any country over, say, 10,000,000 because we’re based on better ideas as opposed to tribe.
What has GDP done for the American people? Trump is president. Trump would not be president if there were not serious economic and social problems in this country, problems the Washington establishment denies and ignores.
And Trump lied when he promised he'd restore American manufacturing. But you already knew that.
If you read the paper this morning, you'd know Trump's guys are trying to get a new deal done with Messico and Canada right now, but Pelosi is saying, "Nah. We don't have time with all this impeachment stuff going on." Even though the Messican Presidente sent her a letter begging her to move her ass on it. But, "Nah" is her official response. Nice try, though.
My kind also has the problem of dragging around with us all of the problems of the shithole countries from whence we came.
Your rum sucks. English speaking Jamaicans make way better rum. Rule Britannia pendejo.
We are no longer friends.
Trader Vic said you have to use Jamaican rum for Mai Tai's . It's more funky with notes of banana and butter. Cuban style rum goes better with coke and lime juice, of course, but that's lazy man's cocktail.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
All very fair points. Most of these are resolved with your reminder about selective immigration. As I've maintained from the beginning, who could be for anything but legal immigration?
Your point about Islam is also very fair, and I don't have a clean answer for you. People who come here have to respect that separation. But the challenge there is that we have homegrown people who don't respect it. Many, in fact. So there's that.
I myself do not believe for one minute that the ideal of pursuing liberty and freedom to make your own way in the American tradition is anything to do with Europe. I think it's inherent in all human beings to year to be free from overlords.
Don't forget that the last standing monarchy of any real significance stands in our closest European ally, and that the concepts of socialism and communism were cooked up in that most trouble making of European countries, Germania. Don't forget those two points. To date, the largest experiments in communism have taken place on the Asian continent.
The greatest expression of liberty is journey to, and arrival at, HERE, of people running away from all that shit. It's not just limited to the English.
In the end, it is folly to think that a bunch of people are going to come here with some sneaky idea and flip the country. It's harder to do that than it sounds on HCH. It takes a lot of time and focus, and what tends to happen in real life is that people get here, they get used to it, they get used to the standard of living and they lose their allegiance and love for where they came from. And their kids assimilate even faster and in one generation, BOOM! You have Americans.
If they change anything, it will be over time with the full participation of the people already here, including OBK's relatives in the trailer park if they want to get up and vote.
No "wave" of immigrants is going to come here and flip this country into something it doesn't want to be as part of some orchestrated scheme.
There's a very real argument to be made that waves of immigrants are what made our government more centralized and federal in nature. "Irish politics".
The old school answer is that liberty and freedom are "universal" but this post modern multipolar world doesn't necessarily confirm that. Why are peoples of the world not clamoring for free markets and democracy with the rise of the information age?
It's not that crazy to trade votes for "open borders" policy and handouts. I tend to agree that "American" culture is fairly massive in its inertia and won't simply be replaced in a generation though.
I completely agree with you how can anyone be for anything but legal immigration? Yet, we have a large part of the Democratic Party who run that policy even if they hide it with double speak.
Maybe. But the increasing complexities of the world, massively increased connectedness and competing interests that could no longer be kept isolated contributed more IMO.
Look, in 1776, living in Viriginia made you a Virginian, which was as or more important to the individual as the Union. The vast majority of people there never left the state and were creatures of a very, very local economy and way of life. I doubt the word "provincial" even existed; because everyone was provincial.
That was going to change with or without giant waves of immigrants. English colonialists were never going to keep this landmass for themselves. We all know that.
I can't tell you why people in disparate political, economic and social situations do and don't clamor for democracy and markets. The latter is probably still an abstraction to many of them. But those who want to come here definitely tend to have an opinion, and I doubt that it's to secretly flip us to big state socialism or communism. I think the main things on their minds are finding work, buying food and finding a place to live. It will be a generation before they have someone idle enough to join us in the Tug.
We just need to enforce the laws already on the books and regulate immigration. I'm fine with that. You already know where I take issue on this topic.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
All very fair points. Most of these are resolved with your reminder about selective immigration. As I've maintained from the beginning, who could be for anything but legal immigration?
Your point about Islam is also very fair, and I don't have a clean answer for you. People who come here have to respect that separation. But the challenge there is that we have homegrown people who don't respect it. Many, in fact. So there's that.
I myself do not believe for one minute that the ideal of pursuing liberty and freedom to make your own way in the American tradition is anything to do with Europe. I think it's inherent in all human beings to year to be free from overlords.
Don't forget that the last standing monarchy of any real significance stands in our closest European ally, and that the concepts of socialism and communism were cooked up in that most trouble making of European countries, Germania. Don't forget those two points. To date, the largest experiments in communism have taken place on the Asian continent.
The greatest expression of liberty is journey to, and arrival at, HERE, of people running away from all that shit. It's not just limited to the English.
In the end, it is folly to think that a bunch of people are going to come here with some sneaky idea and flip the country. It's harder to do that than it sounds on HCH. It takes a lot of time and focus, and what tends to happen in real life is that people get here, they get used to it, they get used to the standard of living and they lose their allegiance and love for where they came from. And their kids assimilate even faster and in one generation, BOOM! You have Americans.
If they change anything, it will be over time with the full participation of the people already here, including OBK's relatives in the trailer park if they want to get up and vote.
No "wave" of immigrants is going to come here and flip this country into something it doesn't want to be as part of some orchestrated scheme.
There's a very real argument to be made that waves of immigrants are what made our government more centralized and federal in nature. "Irish politics".
The old school answer is that liberty and freedom are "universal" but this post modern multipolar world doesn't necessarily confirm that. Why are peoples of the world not clamoring for free markets and democracy with the rise of the information age?
It's not that crazy to trade votes for "open borders" policy and handouts. I tend to agree that "American" culture is fairly massive in its inertia and won't simply be replaced in a generation though.
I completely agree with you how can anyone be for anything but legal immigration? Yet, we have a large part of the Democratic Party who run that policy even if they hide it with double speak.
Maybe. But the increasing complexities of the world, massively increased connectedness and competing interests that could no longer be kept isolated contributed more IMO.
Look, in 1776, living in Viriginia made you a Virginian, which was as or more important to the individual as the Union. The vast majority of people there never left the state and were creatures of a very, very local economy and way of life. I doubt the word "provincial" even existed; because everyone was provincial.
That was going to change with or without giant waves of immigrants. English colonialists were never going to keep this landmass for themselves. We all know that.
I can't tell you why people in disparate political, economic and social situations do and don't clamor for democracy and markets. The latter is probably still an abstraction to many of them. But those who want to come here definitely tend to have an opinion, and I doubt that it's to secretly flip us to big state socialism or communism. I think the main things on their minds are finding work, buying food and finding a place to live. It will be a generation before they have someone idle enough to join us in the Tug.
We just need to enforce the laws already on the books and regulate immigration. I'm fine with that. You already know where I take issue on this topic.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
Look, you and I have had a lock of good banter here over the years and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said in one of the other threads, no one should be accusing someone of racism for holding any of the following views:
1 - The Euro zone has created some significant problems for themselves because of high levels of immigration from N. African and the Middle East. They aren't very good at running a melting pot in comparison the USA.
2- Allowing illegal immigration is bad policy and the border should be secure.
3- Immigration policy should be based on economic benefit to the broadest swath of the US population as possible.
4- Lastly, we do do have a refugee crisis on our hands because of failed states in Latin America, and it simply not possible to let in every single person who wants to get asylum status in the US.
But where you are going to veer into the the racism lane and run afoul of @creepycoug@MikeDamone - and pretty much every poster here - is if you argue immigration policy should be geared toward keeping the US a white ancestry, majority nation. We were never set up to be a nation state based on tribe (sorry @Swaye ), but rather adherence to a creed- i.e., We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss.
Demographic change has been a constant in the country since it's founding and folks have been bitching (they were racist AF) about foreign hordes invading America ever since.
First, my English ancestors who got here on the Mayflower BTW, complained about the Germans and the Irish. Then it was the Polacks (I married one; so did Creep) , Jews and Italians. Now it's Creep's swarthy people. But through every demographic shift the melting pot has done it's thing and we are still by far the most successful and richest large nation on Earth and this isn't changing anytime soon. Yes, something like 30% of the US will have some Hispanic ancestry by 2050, but most will be muts and I'm sure their Engrish will be skrong.
Classy poast from a classy poaster.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
All very fair points. Most of these are resolved with your reminder about selective immigration. As I've maintained from the beginning, who could be for anything but legal immigration?
Your point about Islam is also very fair, and I don't have a clean answer for you. People who come here have to respect that separation. But the challenge there is that we have homegrown people who don't respect it. Many, in fact. So there's that.
I myself do not believe for one minute that the ideal of pursuing liberty and freedom to make your own way in the American tradition is anything to do with Europe. I think it's inherent in all human beings to year to be free from overlords.
Don't forget that the last standing monarchy of any real significance stands in our closest European ally, and that the concepts of socialism and communism were cooked up in that most trouble making of European countries, Germania. Don't forget those two points. To date, the largest experiments in communism have taken place on the Asian continent.
The greatest expression of liberty is journey to, and arrival at, HERE, of people running away from all that shit. It's not just limited to the English.
In the end, it is folly to think that a bunch of people are going to come here with some sneaky idea and flip the country. It's harder to do that than it sounds on HCH. It takes a lot of time and focus, and what tends to happen in real life is that people get here, they get used to it, they get used to the standard of living and they lose their allegiance and love for where they came from. And their kids assimilate even faster and in one generation, BOOM! You have Americans.
If they change anything, it will be over time with the full participation of the people already here, including OBK's relatives in the trailer park if they want to get up and vote.
No "wave" of immigrants is going to come here and flip this country into something it doesn't want to be as part of some orchestrated scheme.
There's a very real argument to be made that waves of immigrants are what made our government more centralized and federal in nature. "Irish politics".
The old school answer is that liberty and freedom are "universal" but this post modern multipolar world doesn't necessarily confirm that. Why are peoples of the world not clamoring for free markets and democracy with the rise of the information age?
It's not that crazy to trade votes for "open borders" policy and handouts. I tend to agree that "American" culture is fairly massive in its inertia and won't simply be replaced in a generation though.
I completely agree with you how can anyone be for anything but legal immigration? Yet, we have a large part of the Democratic Party who run that policy even if they hide it with double speak.
Maybe. But the increasing complexities of the world, massively increased connectedness and competing interests that could no longer be kept isolated contributed more IMO.
Look, in 1776, living in Viriginia made you a Virginian, which was as or more important to the individual as the Union. The vast majority of people there never left the state and were creatures of a very, very local economy and way of life. I doubt the word "provincial" even existed; because everyone was provincial.
That was going to change with or without giant waves of immigrants. English colonialists were never going to keep this landmass for themselves. We all know that.
I can't tell you why people in disparate political, economic and social situations do and don't clamor for democracy and markets. The latter is probably still an abstraction to many of them. But those who want to come here definitely tend to have an opinion, and I doubt that it's to secretly flip us to big state socialism or communism. I think the main things on their minds are finding work, buying food and finding a place to live. It will be a generation before they have someone idle enough to join us in the Tug.
We just need to enforce the laws already on the books and regulate immigration. I'm fine with that. You already know where I take issue on this topic.
Can we quid pro quo out the ones who are already here hating liberty and freedom in exchange for those who want to be here for liberty and freedom?
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
More incoherent ramblings and logical fallacies from a racist crackpot. Every is laughing at you.
Really? No one is upvoted or chinning any of your posts except for your racist, beaner sidekick.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
More incoherent ramblings and logical fallacies from a racist crackpot. Every is laughing at you.
Really? No one is upvoted or chinning any of your posts except for your racist, beaner sidekick.
BTW, I never really had any animosity toward your friend until he started becoming a slanderer and a purveyor of false information like Damone, twisting peoples' words and meanings to suit whatever narrative he's peddling. He's always been that way, but he's been that way more so of late. Always calling people racists when he himself has shown a penchant toward racism directed at whites. When someone uses terms like 'white trash,' (it doesn't offend me, I just hate the hypocrisy of people using terms like that then throwing a fit when they're called a beaner, a gook, or something else in return), then using these other terms to describe a person is fair game imo.
More incoherent ramblings and logical fallacies from a racist crackpot. Every is laughing at you.
Really? No one is upvoted or chinning any of your posts except for your racist, beaner sidekick.
Comments
He failed miserably, got scapled and lost his soul. I do not shed a tear.
Some good came out of it though. I'm back as a Husky and have returned to wishing nothing but ill and misery to the ducks. Feels good to be back with my own kind.
Besides, my boyfriend and his Criscoballz will be done with the white trash in Eugene soon enough and will journey home to resurrect a Miami program that just lost to FIU and lost at sea.
I'm going to attempt to make a coherent point from OBK's mangled reasoning purely to expand the discussion.
Even during all of the waves of immigration and "give us your tired, your poor" America has ALWAYS engaged in selective immigration through quotas, fees, IQ tests, etc.
Are there origin countries that are more or less likely to produce immigrants which are MOAR likely to accept the creeds upon which our nation is founded?
Are the values you point to inherently Western and the product of a European age of reason? So is euro-centric immigration likely to produce immigrants more likely to accept inherently "European" ideals?
Are non-western peoples just as likely to accept western ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or do they have their own sets of ideals which may be counter to those?
You know I tend towards the concept of a "Roman citizenship" concept of the USA. To me peoples like @creepycoug's who come here inherently because they yearn for the values of freedom and liberty are often better than ignorant millenials who don't remember what socialismo actually looks like. That said, in a new multipolar global world with competing idealogies, increased mobility, and the very real reality of inequality, I have to question some of these things.
The reality is that Islam, philosophically, is different from "Western" religions in that it doesn't see a separation of religion and law or "church and state". Religion IS the LAW.
What about authoritarian regimes and their globe trotting elite who wish to stash their wealth in a country that has property rights and the rule of law while oppressing their countrymen at home out of practicality who don't share those values(Russia & China)?
What about the very real idea that some people want to establish an even larger welfare state and that that really will attract the global poor that simply want to feast at the biggest tit available?
Your point about Islam is also very fair, and I don't have a clean answer for you. People who come here have to respect that separation. But the challenge there is that we have homegrown people who don't respect it. Many, in fact. So there's that.
I myself do not believe for one minute that the ideal of pursuing liberty and freedom to make your own way in the American tradition is anything to do with Europe. I think it's inherent in all human beings to year to be free from overlords.
Don't forget that the last standing monarchy of any real significance stands in our closest European ally, and that the concepts of socialism and communism were cooked up in that most trouble making of European countries, Germania. Don't forget those two points. To date, the largest experiments in communism have taken place on the Asian continent.
The greatest expression of liberty is journey to, and arrival at, HERE, of people running away from all that shit. It's not just limited to the English.
In the end, it is folly to think that a bunch of people are going to come here with some sneaky idea and flip the country. It's harder to do that than it sounds on HCH. It takes a lot of time and focus, and what tends to happen in real life is that people get here, they get used to it, they get used to the standard of living and they lose their allegiance and love for where they came from. And their kids assimilate even faster and in one generation, BOOM! You have Americans.
If they change anything, it will be over time with the full participation of the people already here, including OBK's relatives in the trailer park if they want to get up and vote.
No "wave" of immigrants is going to come here and flip this country into something it doesn't want to be as part of some orchestrated scheme.
The old school answer is that liberty and freedom are "universal" but this post modern multipolar world doesn't necessarily confirm that. Why are peoples of the world not clamoring for free markets and democracy with the rise of the information age?
It's not that crazy to trade votes for "open borders" policy and handouts. I tend to agree that "American" culture is fairly massive in its inertia and won't simply be replaced in a generation though.
I completely agree with you how can anyone be for anything but legal immigration? Yet, we have a large part of the Democratic Party who run that policy even if they hide it with double speak.
Sure escalated quickly.
Look, in 1776, living in Viriginia made you a Virginian, which was as or more important to the individual as the Union. The vast majority of people there never left the state and were creatures of a very, very local economy and way of life. I doubt the word "provincial" even existed; because everyone was provincial.
That was going to change with or without giant waves of immigrants. English colonialists were never going to keep this landmass for themselves. We all know that.
I can't tell you why people in disparate political, economic and social situations do and don't clamor for democracy and markets. The latter is probably still an abstraction to many of them. But those who want to come here definitely tend to have an opinion, and I doubt that it's to secretly flip us to big state socialism or communism. I think the main things on their minds are finding work, buying food and finding a place to live. It will be a generation before they have someone idle enough to join us in the Tug.
We just need to enforce the laws already on the books and regulate immigration. I'm fine with that. You already know where I take issue on this topic.
@DerekJohnson what do you think?