General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
The "conservatives" in power are perfectly content with the flood of illegal immigrants because corporate interests are happy with it. Oh sure, they'll talk about how evil illegals are to win support from their base, but they've done exactly nothing about it despite having the legislative power to deal with the issue many times of the last 30 years.

Great. That has what to do with my question, exactly? Average joe conservative does not want illegal immigrants in his country, and the fact that politicians who want votes from the conservative populations have to campaign against illegal immigration proves that what I'm saying is a consistent right-wing position, even though I think we can both agree that politicians are not the most trustworthy of beings. So the question still remains. Is allowing illegal and undocumented people into your country as opposed to upholding immigration laws a "progressive" policy that should be encouraged, simply because most leftist-hippie types like the idea?
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-26-2010, 11:15 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwilliam54 View Post
yeah they numbers were out of my ass, but the effect was not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

and FWIW, yeah he doesn't know shit
I would have voted republican in all local elections (MS) for almost half of the last 50 years

The effect is obvious, but my point that he's full of shit is not only correct, but is proven correct. He essentially contradicted himself by saying GOP policies of 50 years ago would drive the United States into the ground, meaning he's suggesting such ideas as civil rights for black people will lead to the downfall of his country. Either he just revealed to everyone that he's a closet racist, or his knowledge of his own country's history is inferior to that of a Canadian. It's a fair thing to expect though, since some US Americans don't have maps.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-26-2010, 11:17 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

Forever Domon
 
Forever Domon's Avatar
 
So. What would happen, if tomorrow, we naturalized every single illegal immigrant. Growing our population by like 40%, and thus incurring 40% more tax gain, with a somewhat lessened gain on public services that theyre already using already for "Free".

I dont see the loss. They live here already, they use our services already, they just dont pay taxes or vote. Make them pay taxes, and gain revenue otherwise lost.
Old 06-26-2010, 11:20 AM Forever Domon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

wwilliam54
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by domonbaylespam View Post
So. What would happen, if tomorrow, we naturalized every single illegal immigrant. Growing our population by like 40%, and thus incurring 40% more tax gain, with a somewhat lessened gain on public services that theyre already using already for "Free".

I dont see the loss. They live here already, they use our services already, they just dont pay taxes or vote. Make them pay taxes, and gain revenue otherwise lost.

Keeping them Illegal lets the right leaning business owners have their cake and eat it too.
A large pool of very cheap labor that tends to want to vote left, but cannot vote.
While the right trumpets sending them back, its all doublespeak.
__________________
2004 Grand Marquis- Just a big bucket o' steel.
1997 Geo- Three Cylinders of Fury, 5 Gears of slow (R.I.P)
Old 06-26-2010, 12:18 PM wwilliam54 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiyruu View Post
It seems that since the 60s we have been on an irreversible left shift. The Liberal agenda has marched forward, sometimes there is a small shift back to the right, but eventually every one step back to the right seems to be replaced by two steps towards the left. So even though we may think that there is a back and forth between right and left, the overall shift is continually towards the left.

Shifts towards the right seem to be moral/values based, and shifts towards the left seem to be based on cultural changes. There is a gradual erosion and attrition of the old morals/values system by the liberal-driven changes in popular culture. This cultural change seems to have been brought about through avenues of pop-culture, television, music, magazines etc, all of which have a liberal bias. Somewhere along the line we collectively decided that pop-culture would become our moral compass, and so we got caught up in its messages and danced to its tune, and it has been the driving force that has moved us continuously left.

There was a major rightward shift in the 80's that's still defining the politics of the US, what are you talking about? The majority of Americans have always been "conservative" anyway.
Old 06-26-2010, 12:57 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
How is legalizing pot "progressive"? Also, legalizing pot is not that easy, given the international narcotics laws that the United States and other Western powers are signatory to. Do you consider it progressive that we still have a sizable portion of tobacco smokers that are getting cancer, dying early, and costing society billions of dollars every year (sorry, in "progressive" countries with social health care anyways...actually the United States as well when you think about it....)? Would you consider legalizing heroin and cocaine as "progressive", since you think legalizing pot is "progressive" as well? I don't understand how legalizing a narcotic substance defines social progress in general, since marijuana consumption is not a requirement to have a "successful" society. I suppose it does because it's generally leftist.

Again, you're defining "progress" by what is left-wing and what you agree with. That is not the definition of "progress". Just because it's left-wing does not make it progressive.
Because it would end the war on minoritys and other "undesirables" justified by the war on drugs as well as help stop the prison-industrial complex which has been a major goal of leftists in the US for decades?
Old 06-26-2010, 01:05 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by domonbaylespam View Post
support from their base (of illegal immigrants?)

Illegal immigrants cant vote. They have absolutely no base power to representatives.
Good thing the money from business interests far outweighs the marginal votes they would receive from illegal immigrants then.
Old 06-26-2010, 01:08 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Because it would end the war on minoritys and other "undesirables" justified by the war on drugs as well as help stop the prison-industrial complex which has been a major goal of leftists in the US for decades?



Yes, the US government keeps drugs illegal to imprison more black people. I bet you think the WTC was destroyed by nuclear bombs, as well.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-26-2010, 01:12 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post


Yes, the US government keeps drugs illegal to imprison more black people. I bet you think the WTC was destroyed by nuclear bombs, as well.
Marijuana was made illegal in the US specifically to target Mexicans and provide an excuse for deporting/imprisoning them and did the same for the Black community once it became more popular there.
Old 06-26-2010, 01:16 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiyruu View Post
Why have the left been allowed to take the word 'progressive' as their own? Since they have co-opted that word, we
confuse the liberal agenda with progress. That is how we keep shifting left.

There are certain social/economic milestones that the left has achieved since the 60s that will never be reversed (Actually it really all started with Lloyd George in England). I'm not saying that all these milestones were bad, but I'm just pointing out that the right will never have enough political momentum to reverse these milestones.

I wouldn't classify myself as being on the right necessarily, I'm just trying to point out this shift as an observer of change.

you're regurgitating their playbook.

their agenda involves moving power from the democratic process outlined in the constitution to local business interests via religious organizations. only problem is about 20% of the public actually believes in the religion enough to actually attend their events and give them money.

so faced with only 20% of the voting public's support they present themselves as against any policy but their own (even if it's the same as their own), rather than trying to be 'for' anything. since a small minority is actually for what they're for.

"i wouldn't classify the above facts as facts, just pointing out facts."

Old 06-26-2010, 02:43 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
How is legalizing pot "progressive"? Also, legalizing pot is not that easy, given the international narcotics laws that the United States and other Western powers are signatory to. Do you consider it progressive that we still have a sizable portion of tobacco smokers that are getting cancer, dying early, and costing society billions of dollars every year (sorry, in "progressive" countries with social health care anyways...actually the United States as well when you think about it....)? Would you consider legalizing heroin and cocaine as "progressive", since you think legalizing pot is "progressive" as well? I don't understand how legalizing a narcotic substance defines social progress in general, since marijuana consumption is not a requirement to have a "successful" society. I suppose it does because it's generally leftist.

Again, you're defining "progress" by what is left-wing and what you agree with. That is not the definition of "progress". Just because it's left-wing does not make it progressive.

I'm sorry but progressive is not some recently coopted word for liberal. I will let the progressive magazine, which has been around for over a century, explain what progressive is, and has been for some time, in american political parlance.

http://www.progressive.org/mission

Quote:
The Progressive is a monthly leftwing magazine of investigative reporting, political commentary, cultural coverage, activism, interviews, poetry, and humor. It steadfastly stands against militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, and the disenfranchisement of the citizenry. It champions peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy. Its bedrock values are nonviolence and freedom of speech.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Quote:
Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.
In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson [1].
It's not necessarily about liberalism. It is about reform and change which is fairly antithetical to american conservatism. Liberals and progressives just make natural partners in american politics and that is why they are correlated.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 06-26-2010, 03:11 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by domonbaylespam View Post
So. What would happen, if tomorrow, we naturalized every single illegal immigrant. Growing our population by like 40%, and thus incurring 40% more tax gain, with a somewhat lessened gain on public services that theyre already using already for "Free".

I dont see the loss. They live here already, they use our services already, they just dont pay taxes or vote. Make them pay taxes, and gain revenue otherwise lost.

40%? there's only like 20 million illegals here, not 120 million.

and actually a lot of them do end up paying taxes through withholding, they just never file or get returns. but IIRC those are also the people using fake SS# to get semi-legitimate paying jobs.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 06-26-2010, 03:21 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post


Yes, the US government keeps drugs illegal to imprison more black people. I bet you think the WTC was destroyed by nuclear bombs, as well.

actually, that is pretty much the entire point of the drug war. from it's inception it was used in the united states as a population control for minorities and so called undesirable groups. In the 60/70s it was briefly re-tasked to marginalize hippies and anti-war protesters but ever since then it has continued to be used to marginalize and disenfranchise mostly inner city minorities.

Remember that famous "God Damn America" quote by that reverend wright fellow? Well the "god damn america" line was the culmination of a rant against the historical plight of black people and other minorities in america and the drug war and the damage it has done to inner cities and minority communities in our nation. No one bothered to pay any attention to that part though.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 06-26-2010, 03:22 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
Great. That has what to do with my question, exactly? Average joe conservative does not want illegal immigrants in his country, and the fact that politicians who want votes from the conservative populations have to campaign against illegal immigration proves that what I'm saying is a consistent right-wing position, even though I think we can both agree that politicians are not the most trustworthy of beings. So the question still remains. Is allowing illegal and undocumented people into your country as opposed to upholding immigration laws a "progressive" policy that should be encouraged, simply because most leftist-hippie types like the idea?

Your average liberal doesn't want to see illegal immigration run rampant either, really the only people who want that are certain business interests. Most liberals want to make it easier to become a legitimate citizen.

As far as the "progressive" slant, pyramid dealt with that pretty well. It's not an arbitrary term like you're trying to make it.

Quote:
How is legalizing pot "progressive"? Also, legalizing pot is not that easy, given the international narcotics laws that the United States and other Western powers are signatory to. Do you consider it progressive that we still have a sizable portion of tobacco smokers that are getting cancer, dying early, and costing society billions of dollars every year (sorry, in "progressive" countries with social health care anyways...actually the United States as well when you think about it....)? Would you consider legalizing heroin and cocaine as "progressive", since you think legalizing pot is "progressive" as well? I don't understand how legalizing a narcotic substance defines social progress in general, since marijuana consumption is not a requirement to have a "successful" society. I suppose it does because it's generally leftist.

Again, you're defining "progress" by what is left-wing and what you agree with. That is not the definition of "progress". Just because it's left-wing does not make it progressive.
From a progressive value standpoint: the Drug War is incredibly wasteful, jails millions of Americans, increases the power of the state while accomplishing basically nothing, and funnels money into the hands of vastly powerful criminal gangs which are destabilizing our neighbors in this Hemisphere. History showed us the consequences of Prohibition, but we apparently didn't learn much from it. It's not so much about smoking pot as it is about removing all the negatives from fighting it.

Also, pot is not a narcotic.
Old 06-26-2010, 04:53 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiyruu View Post
It seems that since the 60s we have been on an irreversible left shift. The Liberal agenda has marched forward, sometimes there is a small shift back to the right, but eventually every one step back to the right seems to be replaced by two steps towards the left. So even though we may think that there is a back and forth between right and left, the overall shift is continually towards the left.

Shifts towards the right seem to be moral/values based, and shifts towards the left seem to be based on cultural changes. There is a gradual erosion and attrition of the old morals/values system by the liberal-driven changes in popular culture. This cultural change seems to have been brought about through avenues of pop-culture, television, music, magazines etc, all of which have a liberal bias. Somewhere along the line we collectively decided that pop-culture would become our moral compass, and so we got caught up in its messages and danced to its tune, and it has been the driving force that has moved us continuously left.
The fact that you think it's been "since the 60s" shows just how little you actually know of and understand American history and completely invalidates the rest of your idiotic post.
Old 06-26-2010, 05:14 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:01 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.