Posted by Tina
It’s no surprise, I know, but still I just can’t let this stuff pass. John Kerry was speaking somewhere recently and talking about the “border-less world” when he said the following:
“Many of you were in elementary school when you learned the toughest lesson of all on 9/11,” he said. “There are no walls big enough to stop people from anywhere, tens of thousands of miles away, who are determined to take their own lives while they target others.”
“So I think that everything that we’ve lived and learn tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from sound-bite salesmen and carnival barkers who pretend the most powerful country on Earth can remain great by looking inward,” Kerry added. “And hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt.”
The guy was doing okay for a second there. It’s true there are no walls big enough to stop another 911. But that’s because the world is, and always will be, a risky, dangerous place. Building a wall isn’t about preventing disaster but about minimizing risk. It isn’t about absolute control but much better management. The wall is an expression of certainty and strength, a signal that we in America have the right, as all nations do, to control our borders.
Next Kerry ran completely off the rails explaining that America won’t “come out on top” if we listen to “sound-bite salesmen and carnival barkers” (Trump)…
Excuse me, John Kerry, but we’ve been subjected to leftie soundbite salesmen and carnival barkers like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barrack Obama, and many others through the years. In the clown category, you, sir, are no slouch yourself. Hillary Clinton recently barked like a dog, could anything be more clownish and less presidential? And while we’re chatting, since when has anyone on the left talked about American being “on top?” You guys have gone out of your way to drag us down and create equivalencies. (Like Iran is the equivalent of the US) You go out of your way to be critical of America using the media, rather than working within through the system provided you by our Constitution. I am your peer, John Kerry, and I remember the left’s failure to support America and our troops in Vietnam. The wall you hide behind is built of disloyalty and dishonor.
Kerry continues by saying those who support the wall (Trump) are “looking inward” and “hiding.” What nonsense. Walls do not incapacitate experience or thinking! The ability to look ahead or to engage with others in the world is not erased or inhibited by a wall. In fact there is strong evidence to suggest that walls (fences) make good neighbors.
The concept of a border-less world, especially the idea of erasing national identity, is just another way of wishing for Nirvana. The EU illustrates the negative consequences. Our southern border illustrates the chaos when the laws of nations aren’t respected. Kerry is among those who pretend that if you make a deal with radical Iranian sponsors of terror they will change their ways and become model global citizens. This is pretending at a delusional level.
Mexico is not a nation without resources: oil and gas, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, and timber. It’s agricultural resources include: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, and dairy products. Mexican’s are known for their craftsmanship and work ethic. Several of it’s citizens are very wealthy. One, Carlos Slim, is among the richest in the world. Vincente Fox is estimated to be worth $10 million, US. It’s time for Mexico to step up for it’s citizens and stop relying on the American economy for jobs and education, health and social services for it’s people. The best thing that could happen for both Mexico and America is a strong middle class and strong national pride. Being forced to climb a wall, sneaking into America to work, represents the failure of Mexico to care for it’s people. Why should Mexican children have to fly the Mexican flag here when they could fly it proudly at home?
Looking outward, “the wall” may be more important as a concept than it is in actuality.
John Kerry, is just another fool, out there indoctrinating young people to a new world order where they would find themselves taxed and controlled by the elites of government and the UN and where they would see individual opportunities shrink away as they do under all socialist constructs.
Quote source: Washington Examiner
Kerry and the elites he shills for are evil. They want to destroy all vestiges of our sovereignty so we are all one world order serfs that can be much more easily ruled. They want to destroy any trace of national identity or culture. It is true ethnic cleansing. May they eternally rot in Hell.
“Like Iran is the equivalent of the US”
Kerry has never said this, nor has anyone else in the Obama administration.
Nor have they called for a “world without borders.”
When you invent arguments and attribute them to your opponents, it makes it look like you cannot knock down their actual arguments.
As for the wall: it’s a wasteful, stupid idea, and it’s never gonna happen.
John Kerry in the same speech: “The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of the past that did not really exist in any case.” You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.”
I don’t know where the concept first began but I do know a lot of lefties believe it’s an idea whose time has come. Bernie Sanders blames it on the Koch Brothers and libertarians. I look at George Soros and his open society foundation.
Required reading: Border walls don’t keep illegal immigrants out. They just keep them from returning.
Donald Trump’s Mexican Border Wall Is a Moronic Idea
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recently released proposal for immigration reform is simple: build a wall along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, and make Mexico pay for it. Setting aside the issue of how the United States might make Mexico pay for a blatant monument to anti-Mexican sentiment, the idea is flat-out moronic, to use one of The Donald’s favorite adjectives, like asking the Mongolians to pay for the Great Wall of China.In the first place, it’s not as if the border is undefended. The United States spends $3.7 billion per year to keep around 21,000 Border Patrol agents in the field, and another $3.2 billion on 23,000 inspectors at ports of entry along the border, a third of which has already been walled or fenced off. It is perhaps the most patrolled and highly defended border anywhere in the world, at least for two closely connected countries at peace with one another. Judging from the border, you’d never know Mexico was a friendly nation linked to the United States by a treaty agreement worth over half a trillion dollars in annual trade.
But a plan for more walls to further enhance border enforcement is moronic not only because it is expensive. Abundant evidence also shows that money spent on border enforcement is worse than useless — it’s counterproductive. For most of the 20th century, migration from Mexico was heavily circular, with male migrants moving back and forth across the border to earn money in the United States and then returning to Mexico to spend and invest at home. From 1965 to 1985, estimates indicate that 86 percent of undocumented entries were offset by departures, and the undocumented population grew slowly, rising to just under 3 million over two decades.
In 1986, however, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which kicked off a decades-long process of border militarization. It was passed during the Cold War, when President Ronald Reagan warned Americans that “terrorists and subversives” south of the border were “just two days’ driving time from Harlingen, Texas” and when his task force on terrorism stated that communist agents were ready to “feed on the anger and frustration of recent Central and South American immigrants who will not realize their own version of the American dream.”Enforcement was further buttressed by the launching of Operation Blockade in El Paso, Texas, in 1993 and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, California, in 1994. These operations, led by the U.S. Border Patrol, erected a literal wall of enforcement resources at the two busiest U.S.-Mexico border crossings. They also diverted migratory flows away from these regions, through the Sonoran Desert, and into Arizona. This diversion greatly increased the costs and risks of undocumented border crossing: Since 1986, more than 7,000 migrants have died along the border, and the average cost of crossing has risen from $600 to $4,500, according to estimates from the Mexican Migration Project, which I co-direct.
Although the intent of border enforcement was to discourage migrants from coming to the United States, in practice it backfired, instead discouraging them from returning home to Mexico. Having experienced the risks and having paid the costs of gaining entry, undocumented men increasingly hunkered down and stayed in the United States, rather than circulating back to face the gantlet once more. As a result, the rate of return migration began to fall after 1986 and accelerated with the launching of the border operations in 1993 and 1994.
Because net migration equals the difference between those entering and leaving the United States, the falling rate of return produced a huge increase in the net volume of undocumented migration. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, in other words, the United States spent billions of dollars, only to double the rate of undocumented population growth. Not only that, but Operation Gatekeeper’s diversion of migrants away from California and into Arizona prompted them to continue onward to new destinations throughout the United States.
Census data indicate that two-thirds of Mexican migrants who arrived between 1985 and 1990 went to California; by the 1995-to-2000 time period, that share had fallen to just one third, where it has since remained. Led by Mexicans, but also by Central Americans, the fastest-growing Latino populations are now in places like Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa — not California.In addition, as male migrants spent more time north of the border, they were increasingly joined by their wives and children. And then they started making babies. At present, almost 80 percent of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants were born in the United States and are U.S. citizens. In the end, the militarization of the border transformed what had been a circular flow of workers going overwhelmingly to just three states — California, Texas, and Illinois — into a much larger settled population of families living across all 50 U.S. states — not a good outcome for a policy whose goal was the limitation and control of immigration.
Doubling down on a failed policy of border militarization by adding more fences and walls is not only moronic because it would continue, at great cost, a demonstrably counterproductive strategy for restricting immigration — but it is also senseless because net undocumented migration from Mexico has stopped. Trump appears not to have received the memo. By the Department of Homeland Security’s own estimates, the total undocumented population peaked at 12 million in 2008, fell by a million by 2009, and since then has fluctuated around 11 million people.Although the Great Recession may have been responsible for the sharp drop in 2008, undocumented Mexican migration had actually begun to decline around 2000 — not because of rising border enforcement, but because of Mexico’s demographic transition. Whereas the total fertility rate stood at 7.2 children per woman in 1965, by 2000 the Mexican fertility rate had fallen to 2.4; today, it stands at 2.3 children per woman, just above replacement level, yielding much less demographic pressure for migration to the United States.
The huge cohorts of Mexicans born in the 1960s were mainly responsible for the large number of undocumented migrants entering the United States during the 1980s, but the small cohorts born since 2000 have produced declining rates of labor force growth in Mexico, which has become an aging society. Migration follows a characteristic age pattern that rises in the teens, peaks in the early 20s, and falls to near zero by age 30. If people don’t migrate within that age range, they are very unlikely to make the journey later. What this means: The average age of Mexicans at risk of initiating undocumented migration has now pushed past the upper limit.
Although improving economic conditions would have, by now, led to a return of undocumented migrants if historical patterns still prevailed, this simply hasn’t happened. Instead, the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest point since 1973. And in 2014, for the first time, a majority of those caught were Central Americans — not Mexicans — who have long been a small part of the undocumented inflow, and amounted to little more than a rounding error when Mexican apprehensions were regularly exceeding 1 million per year.
Fertility rates are also dropping rapidly in Central America. Given current demographic realities south of the border, where 85 percent of undocumented migrants originate, a return to the 1980s and 1990s is extremely unlikely.While net undocumented migration from Mexico may have ceased, legal immigration continues apace. Over the past 10 years, the United States experienced 1.6 million entries by legal immigrants and 3.9 million entries by temporary workers from Mexico. These migrants increasingly circulate back and forth in response to changing conditions and opportunities in each country, while undocumented migrants are paradoxically the ones who are trapped north of the border, unable to return to Mexico for fear of not being able to return to family, friends, and lives in the north. Rather than attempting to repress migration that occurs as a natural consequence of ongoing economic integration in North America, a more reasonable policy would be to bring the flows aboveboard and manage them in ways that benefit both countries, while protecting the rights of citizens on both sides of the border.The United States already has a sizable guest-worker program and supports a legal framework that allows for significant legal immigration from Mexico each year.
And with net undocumented migration at zero, the border is as under control as it’s ever going to be. The only task remaining is finding a pathway to legal status for 11 million undocumented residents of the United States, giving them the freedom to come and go as they please and build a better life wherever they choose.With few undocumented migrants entering and those already in the United States legalized, the problem of undocumented migration would be solved. This might be an unwelcome development for politicians who have grown used to using illegal migration as a sop to mobilize voters. But the reality is that undocumented migration has ended and won’t be coming back. Spending billions of dollars more on border enforcement to solve a problem that no longer exists is, umm, what’s the right word? Moronic.
Amazing. A kid that backs the party that seeks control of every aspect of our lives (Democrats) can’t imagine a world where immigration is managed. Nor can he imagine that a wall might play a part in that management.
Also if you think a wall would prevent people from returning to Mexico then of course it also would prevent people from coming to the US. Walls aren’t one-sided.
The people with property along the border might like to give the wall a shot across their property to see if it acts as an impediment, which you have just acknowledged. Some of them have called for moats and gators. 🙂
A wall would funnel activity so a more manageable border results for border patrol agents.
The problem for liberals is they can’t imagine anything other than protests and occupy movements.
Tina: “Amazing. A kid that backs the party”
Tina, are you really just going to begin every counter-argument with “You’re a Democrat, so neener neener” from now on?
“can’t imagine a world where immigration is managed.”
Stupid strawman argument. America already manages immigration better than most nations.
“Nor can he imagine that a wall might play a part in that management.”
I cited a rather lengthy explanation of why that’s nothing BUT imagination. Either respond to it, or there’s no sense in responding at all.
“Also if you think a wall would prevent people from returning to Mexico then of course it also would prevent people from coming to the US. Walls aren’t one-sided.”
Addressed in the article.
“Some of them have called for moats and gators. ”
And you smile at such idiocy? No wonder Trump did so well.
“A wall would funnel activity so a more manageable border results for border patrol agents.”
No, it wouldn’t. Read the article.
Chris it’s an interesting article but it makes several assumptions that simply aren’t true, the most important being that conservatives are motivated by race hatred, and conveniently leaves out other information that is equally impacting. It fails to emphasize the extent to which our entitlement programs act like a magnate, both in terms of coming here to give birth and in terms of failing to meet a court date in order to stay. In both cases. Democrats are constantly pushing for additional benefits for non-citizens which exacerbates the problem. The (I believe) pre-planned surge of children from Central America, which is happening again, has been encouraged and promoted by the current administration. The pleas of residents who live along the border have been ignored and the people maligned as “fringe” or “nuts and kooks.” The most disgusting of all is the knee-jerk labeling of racism is a dismissal tactic.
I have zero respect for anyone who automatically dismisses an idea with such omissions and denials, especially an idea that hasn’t yet been well fully defined or officially proposed. An attempt to squelching such discussion at this stage is counterproductive and frankly typical of the pig headed, my way or the highway left that has so many Americans frustrated and angry.
And yes, I am going to point out, time and again, that you are a person that has promoted and defended the party that has so ravaged this country and even now refuses to take any responsibility at all for the state of our country ad the world and that will do anything to advance a socialist, open borders agenda that is counter to the principles on which this nation was founded.
Forgot the link:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/donald-trump-immigration-border/
Tina, your wall is a fairytale, a fantasy, and your susceptibility to it, rather than to the hard work and sacrifice required to make this a decent society is how you come to be where you are, candidate-wise.
Thanks for sharing Libby.
May I say with all due respect that your nirvana fantasy has been much more dangerous and damaging to America and the middle and lower classes than any idea I might be willing to give a shot (The wall)…especially since we don’t know the specifics. The Wall exists as much as a concept about loose squishy borders as it does about a physical wall.
and may I also say that, candidate-wise, the alternatives to Trump are anything but worthy…one a liar and criminal and the other a self described socialist who loves communism and will decimate our already under-performing economy (failed for the middle class and poor) and further explode our nations debt. The kids that love Bernie are being hood-winked in the same way that people were hood-winked by “hope and change.” It will be their lack of jobs and their growing debt and decency, which happens in anyone’s life at the local level, will be on par with those living in Mexico and Venezuela. Lack of job, basic essentials, and services tends to make folks un-decent. Example: Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy:
Making every suburb in America exactly like Chicago, neat huh? so incredibly decent of them.
The left has no standard for decency. Decency to the left is excusing every form of bad behavior, dysfunctional behavior, criminal behavior and forcing law abiding decent citizens to enable this insane and warped sense of decency.
Socialism is about making sure that everyone lives in misery as dependents of the elitists who rule over them. There’s nothing “decent” about that, nothing constitutional for sure.
Lurch once again displays an agenda instead of intelligence, and is a living example of the Peter Principle.
Wait a minute – the Peter Principle requires that one be competent at SOMETHING, and Lurch fails at that!
The Botox must’ve reached whatever is left between his ears . . . . .
Have you had enough of these left wing lunatics like Kerry and Chris yet? There are no borders when the government refuses to enforce borders. Is that the government you want?
The notion that border enforcement is self defeating is trivially false. That Chris champions it should tell you something. The FP magazine agenda of no borders is as suspect as Chris. This is “globalization” left-wing style. The racist La Raza style.
Re Tina: “Amazing. A kid that backs the party that seeks control of every aspect of our lives (Democrats) can’t imagine a world where immigration is managed.”
BINGO! You struck right into the heart of this troll fool.
Of particular note: “But the reality is that undocumented migration has ended and won’t be coming back.”
Oh really? That is sheer nonsense. A bald faced lie. No wonder Chris jumps on the bandwagon! FP is as much as demented liar as he is.
Pie, I’m sure if the roles were reversed Chris would be telling us that FP has been “discredited.”
Another of their articles has this as a title: “Why Kim Jong Un Needs a Nuclear Weapon”
I find it incredibly amusing (and scary) that the radical left generation that was so afraid of nuclear winter, and crazy people with their finger on the button, are now promoting/enabling the craziest leaders in the world, North Korea and Iran, to get nukes.
Tina, that article title did sound inflammatory, so I read it. It’s not “promoting” North Korea to get nukes. It’s saying that Un needs them to secure his power, and goes into detail about why this is important to his own idea of legacy. It’s not advocating that North Korea getting nukes would be good for the world.
The quote Pie brings up is definitely an overstatement, to the point of being dishonest. I understood the author’s point to be that previous levels of undocumented immigration aren’t coming back, for the reasons he outlined. But that statement goes too far, and Pie has a point that it weakens the entire article that preceded it.
Finally, I don’t think the author is assuming racism on the part of anti-immigrants. It’s a conclusion, not an assumption, and it’s a conclusion based on the fact that anti-immigrants have so overestimated the threat of illegal immigration, and so downplayed the many economic benefits of it, that it leads a reasonable person to conclude that the anti-immigrant movement isn’t based on reason. It is not a stretch to then conclude that racism may be a motivating factor, especially when key voices in the anti-immigrant movement have openly expressed fear that our nation is becoming less white and more Hispanic.
“It’s not advocating that North Korea getting nukes would be good for the world.”
Okay. So the point of the article is what? An armchair therapy session? An expression of understanding. Someone that thinks Un needs to be explained to the world? What?
“I don’t think the author is assuming racism on the part of anti-immigrants.”
Chris look at how even you describe people that want control of the border and immigration: “anti-immigrant. There’s no evidence that those people are against immigration! There is plenty of evidence to show their concerns are legitimate and concerned with the laws of our nation.
On the other hand the left has consistently accused anyone who objects to illegal entry as racist when in fact their concerns are: illegal entry, providing healthcare, education and social services for those who enter illegally, and the administrations concerted effort to disregard immigration and security laws.
“anti-immigrants have so overestimated the threat of illegal immigration, and so downplayed the many economic benefits of it, that it leads a reasonable person to conclude that the anti-immigrant movement isn’t based on reason.”
Does it occur to you that the arguments on your side are based in disregard for the law? Does it occur to you that anytime we disregard and disrespect our laws the rule of law breaks down and becomes meaningless?
It’s difficult to accept your assessment regarding “reason” considering your side has shown no respect for the legitimate concerns of your fellow citizens, have attempted to label them as racist, and since your side seems to have no respect for the rule of law.
“…It is not a stretch to then conclude that racism may be a motivating factor…”
Oh it’s “not a stretch” at all; it is a fabrication of the radical, Alinsky inspired political left to demean and label it’s political opponents. It’s shameful. It’s “cruel, but very effective,” as Alinsky wrote in Rule #12, Rules for Radicals.
“…especially when key voices in the anti-immigrant movement have openly expressed fear that our nation is becoming less white and more Hispanic.”
I don’t have any idea to what degree, if any, this sentiment is expressed. I do know that even if the discussion centered around assimilation or radical elements like La Raza, a group that seeks to undermine our nation, the left would turn it into a racism. It’s what you guys do. You can’t, or won’t, think outside that box.
Much of the division in our nation is based on these false and deceitful accusations. The radical left does a lot of damage to the health and well being of our nation when they do this. It’s particularly disturbing that they target young children, teens and young adults making them the messengers of such tripe.
Re: “It’s a conclusion, not an assumption, and it’s a conclusion based on the fact that anti-immigrants have so overestimated the threat of illegal immigration, and so downplayed the many economic benefits of it, that it leads a reasonable person to conclude that the anti-immigrant movement isn’t based on reason.”
An asinine conclusion based on a specious, lunatic left-wing, anti-nationalism, anti-American agenda. If a nation has no borders, it is no longer a nation. This is what the left seeks, a total transformation (i.e. destruction) of the USA as a sovereign nation.
Duh, no wonder Chris swallows it and vomits it back up in Post Scripts. His idiotic belief that racism is the driving force behind people against illegal immigration is not merely specious, it is a disgusting propagandist lie and a slur. False charges of racism slurs are typical of Chris and the left. They think it clever.
From the website “[Foreign Policy is a magazine] of global politics, economics and ideas. Published bimonthly in print and daily online by the Slate Group, a division of the Washington Post Company.”
Get that? It is a left wing liberal screed produced by left-wing liberal propagandists. Good lord. They publish a good many authors, even Senator Ted Cruz, but that is merely window dressing to make left-wing crap like what Chris champions actually seem reasonable and authentic.
Any fool can see that this article is pure garbage.
Pie, I am against illegal immigration. I think our current laws make it very hard to immigrate legally, and thus incentivize illegal immigration, in the same way prohibition incentivized illegak activity. Our immigration laws need reform so that we are not making illegal that which needs not be illegal.
I have also never said we should be “a nation without borders.”
But as usual, you cannot refute my actual argument, so you just make stuff up.
Re: “Pie, I am against illegal immigration.”
RACIST!
Re: “But as usual, you cannot refute my actual argument, so you just make stuff up.”
I haven’t made anything up, that is YOUR purview. LMAO at your declaration of victory! Could you be any more of a pompous jerk? Of course!
Chris, as usual you self-refute your own “argument”, no reason for me to get involved with your moronic, specious, intellectually dead, inaccurate, ignorant, weasel worded lunacy in detail. Been there, done that. Total waste of time.
Conservatives have many faults, ’tis true
Left-wing liberals like Chris have but two
Everything they say and everything they do.
My bad, the above post should have read …
Re: “Pie, I am against illegal immigration.”
RACIST! XENOPHOBE! WHITE PRIVILEGED BROWN PERSON HATING BIGOT!
“by the Slate Group, a division of the Washington Post Company.”
Thanks Pie. I had to hurry this morning so I didn’t have time to dig that information out.
“…this article is pure garbage”
What gets me is the way they can write in such an earnest style…it sounds so reasonable. Unfortunately it also leaves out a lot, like that thorny “illegal” thing.
This leftie/Righty crap is dead
1. Trump is using the hitler Playbook Bar None
2. As Californians you should know that the Tunnels are where the criminal activity takes place. As soon as the Border Patrol cements one in another elaborate tunnel is ready to go. Drones also drop off drugs now as well.
3. We are not going to build great walls to keep Americans hostage in their own country. Show me a wall in history that was used for the general good of it’s people. No Wall. Just a huge profit for the builders at the risk of freedom.
Keep trying to divide America as these fascists take over. Ya think Trump is an honest sane individual? NO he is a lunatic with an authoritarian way of rule.
ya think Hillary is a Leftie? No she is not. Tell me why Cruz’s hedgefund managers and others are turning their funds to the HRC Camp now?
http://linkis.com/observer.com/2016/05/twklm
Bottom Line to save our country all People have to stop this leftie/Rightie crap because the Big Money Interests are buying out our freedom and rewriting the Constitution through SCOTUS and Congressional lawmaking.
mark my words no one donates millions to any campaign without knowing they will get a return on their investments. They know there is risk involved so they hedge between both parties. In the end They want the trade deals that threaten our sovernighty, SCOTUS picks and to rail the common people into more poverty.
Maybe we should ask conservatives if they all want to move to say…Texas and we can put a wall on both sides of the state. That should make them happy. They can have their Little utopia and stop affecting the rest of us with the failed trickle down policies.
This continent was never a White continent. We welcome all Nationalities and races. If we forced Employers to follow the laws and wrote citations that would be huge! but No! We can never get those employers right? We are a net Zero on immigration right now cause America is a crappy place to live. There are very few decent jobs as they continue to move our jobs.
Ya know Carrier is moving from Indiana to Mexico for $3hr workers. That is a problem. We need to reform our laws to stop this.
The incoherent, illiterate, ill-informed, and infantile Dupester troll strikes again!
Are you speaking of the man in the mirror? You seem to care none about this country.
Recently Chris mentioned that he has a Facebook account. Now I know why —
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Another reason why Chris’ “required reading” garbage article and Chris are just so much moronic trash.
Border Apprehensions of Unaccompanied Minors from Central America May Top 2014 Levels
Dewey: “This leftie/Righty crap is dead”
Bologna you are supporting a far lefty.
“1. Trump is using the hitler Playbook Bar None”
Interesting construction. You don’t capitalize Hitler but you do capitalize, “Playbook” and “Bar None.” I’ve never heard of the Bar None playbook, Hitlers or anyone else’s but if you’d like to tell us what’s in that playbook….
“3. We are not going to build great walls to keep Americans hostage in their own country. Show me a wall in history that was used for the general good of it’s people. No Wall. Just a huge profit for the builders at the risk of freedom.”
Don’t worry, not to many Americans leave the country on foot through the private property of Texans and New Mexicans at the border. The Great Wall of China was built to Protect China:
Did you get that? The Trump wall could become a landmark!
Wikipedia:
And what’s the matter with infrastructure projects? According to you lefties government projects are good for the economy. Maybe they’re only good when Obama or Bernie are president…but not Trump.
“… no one donates millions to any campaign without knowing they will get a return on their investments.”
I agree there’s corruption going on. What is also true is that often donations are made in the hope that it will help keep government off their backs and out of their pockets. As I have said to you numerous times, the answer is a trimmed down federal government. Our government writes onerous and punishing laws and regulations that are costly for business and ultimately the consumer:
That’s money that could be spent on expansion, equipment, and employees, employee pensions or employee salaries. The number is staggering! Instead government takes it and squanders it.
“Maybe we should ask conservatives if they all want to move to say…Texas and we can put a wall on both sides of the state.”
It would be easier, and more cost efficient, to move all lefties to new York and California, most of you already live there anyway. We’ve suggested dividing the nation in this way before and speculated that it would take no time at all for the lefty camps to be completely broke and begging for bailouts.
“…stop affecting the rest of us with the failed trickle down policies.”
Please name the “trickle down policies affecting you now and tell us how they are affecting us.
“America is a crappy place to live.”
Now there’s a vote catching slogan for old Bernie. Did you think that up all by yourself?
“Ya know Carrier is moving from Indiana to Mexico for $3hr workers. That is a problem. We need to reform our laws to stop this.”
We know how to stop Carrier from moving to Mexico! Unfortuately, people like Bernie are too interested in government handouts to do what would inspire businesses to do business in America. Greedy Bernie will take a big chunk of the profits from job creators, if not in taxes then in hidden regulatory costs, and forced minimum wages which raises the related cost of employees. Why would they locate here when Bernie (or Hillary) would treat them like a big government piggy bank? Answer…they wouldn’t. People like you and Bernie don’t know what it takes to run a big business so you make stupid assumptions…like all the profits go into the pockets of rich guys instead of the business. People like you and Bernie would have government limit the amount of money an individual can make for the sake of fairness. The idiots on the left are working very hard to make that a reality with all their giveaways, regulations and minimum wage proposals. It’s the nirvana that will never exist but they don’t mind if we’re all miserable while they play around with the dream.
We have endured the policies Bernie supports for the last almost eight years…it sucks.
Tina you have not a clue.
The last 8 years have been gridlock. With the exception of the ACA all we have seen is a bunch of bull written by corporations.
The GOP and DNC are corporate parties who have blocked out the people. Really girl you need to go to DC and work a bit around congress. I did. I saw. I listened. I lobbied.
You are in Chico relying on corrupt media.
We pay taxes for the good of the people not the will of the banks, corporations, and military industrial complex.
Congress works for the above. PERIOD. Both Parties.
We are not building a great wall to trap in Americans while the fascists rule us.
Wake UP not going to happen. The people will not stand idle.
I do not need to sit here and write a bunch of bull. I am doing it!
People who do nothing to save this country from the rule of Banks and Corporations should not interfere with the millions of people who are rising. Together.
This left/right crap is just that crap. Trying to dictate an ideology to all is the exact same thing ISIS is doing according to their warped view of a religion.
We will not become the modern Nazi Germany. Biff will not rule us.
Understanding Dupester, Chris, and Libbya —
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/26/stupidest-things-said-jesse-watters-about-2016-election
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/25/watters-world-free-stuff-young-people-socialism
Off Topic: Judge rebukes Obama for obfuscation on climate policy —
Federal Judge: Obama White House showed “Bad Faith” in Global Warming Case
Tina: “Okay. So the point of the article is what? An armchair therapy session?”
Pretty much. I never said it was a good article, just that it wasn’t advocating nuclear weapons in North Korea.
“Chris look at how even you describe people that want control of the border and immigration: “anti-immigrant. There’s no evidence that those people are against immigration!”
Except for the loudest and most prominent members of that movement, such as the Center for Immigration Studies (frequently cited by you), being explicitly against immigration period, not just illegal immigration. And the fact that they are generally against making it easier for hard-working immigrants to come here legally, thus incentivizing illegal immigration.
“On the other hand the left has consistently accused anyone who objects to illegal entry as racist when in fact their concerns are:”
I don’t accuse anyone who objects to illegal entry as racist.
“providing healthcare, education and social services for those who enter illegally,”
This ignores that these same immigrants contribute more to our society than they take.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes
“and the administrations concerted effort to disregard immigration and security laws.”
Is that why border enforcement spending and deportations have been at record levels under Obama?
“Does it occur to you that the arguments on your side are based in disregard for the law?”
They’re based on disregard for stupid, counter-productive laws.
“Does it occur to you that anytime we disregard and disrespect our laws the rule of law breaks down and becomes meaningless?”
Yes, which is why I believe we need to change the law.
Me: “…especially when key voices in the anti-immigrant movement have openly expressed fear that our nation is becoming less white and more Hispanic.”
Tina: “I don’t have any idea to what degree, if any, this sentiment is expressed.”
You do, because you have defended and made excuses for it before. When Ann Coulter said that the left was destroying America, and then linked to a Pew poll showing that whites are no longer a majority in California, her meaning was clear: America can only avoid destruction with a white majority. That is, by definition, racist. But you twisted yourself inside out to argue that it wasn’t…why? Is Coulter really that important to the Republican party? Surely her star has faded enough by this point that it’s safe to condemn her extremism without being kicked out by the Tribe?
Because refusing to condemn racism, and turning yourself into knots to avoid seeing it, does nothing but contribute to the problem. And if you can’t see racism even if it’s this clear, than you simply can’t see racism, meaning your denials of racism within the anti-immigrant movement are meaningless.
Proof of institutional racism —
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiFYGj5WwAA3KoV.jpg
Re: “When Ann Coulter said that the left was destroying America, and then linked to a Pew poll showing that whites are no longer a majority in California, her meaning was clear: America can only avoid destruction with a white majority.”
Bull****. Nonsense. Piss Chris the race baiter again infers.
Ann Coulter recognizes the simple fact the vast majority of illegal immigrants happen to be non-white, vote Democrat when legal mechanisms to prevent them from illegally voting are not deployed or enforced, and bleed government services to the cost of trillions. The left is using illegal immigrants (the vast majority of which happen to be non-white) to increase its power base to destroy America, which is what the left and Democrats are all about.
The illegal immigration issue is not about race, but there is a skin color aspect attached to it by the reality of the situation.
I often disagree with Ann Coulter, but she still remains a brilliant, witty, and humorous writer whereas Piss Chris remains, well, Piss Chris. An insignificant left-wing demagogue whose only claim to “fame” is that he is a persistent Post Scripts troll.
Chris you grossly misrepresent CIS:
I can see racism, Chris, when it actually exists. It’s unfortunate that your mind has been polluted to the point that even common sense ideas about immigration policy looks like racism to you. Simply remarking on the truth about changing demographics becomes a racist comment to you. Your PC pollution, IMHO, means your mind is closed and there’s no point in talking with you about the issue.
The left’s argument that foreigners who come here illegally contribute more to our economy than they take in services is often based on false premises. “They aren’t eligible for healthcare,” is one argument. Clearly this is false since hospitals and clinics cannot deny anyone service….somebody picks up the cost and that cost is passed on to the American consumer. Our schools likewise educate the children, crowding our schools and thinning resources meant for American students.
The lefts idea of immigration policy is based on fairness, or some equally irrelevant emotion, without concern for negative consequences or cost. I don’t trust anyone who refuses to take negative consequences seriously. It’s impossible to put definite figures to either side of the argument. Estimate are that we spend as much as $100 billion on services for people that have come here illegally.
Forget immigration policy for a minute. What about respect for the law?
Tina, your evidence that I have “grossly misrepresented” CIS…is to quote CIS’ company line? Why would that be convincing?
Besides, their statement confirms what I said: CIS doesn’t just want to stop less illegal immigration, they want to further restrict *legal* immigration. In addition to being anti-immigrant, this proposal is wildly implausible. It’s not going to happen. There is no solution to the problem of illegal immigration that doesn’t involve widening paths to legalization among immigrants; both the mainstream right and the mainstream left have accepted this truth. CIS, an extremist group, has not.
“Simply remarking on the truth about changing demographics becomes a racist comment to you.”
When that comment is that changing demographics, specifically whites no longer being a majority, are destroying America, it doesn’t *become* a racist comment; it IS a racist comment, literally by definition. I don’t understand why you continue to deny this obvious fact. Especially when Coulter has said so many racist things before; she has said airlines should advertise that they discriminate against Arabs, and when an Arab girl confronted her about this and asked what form of transportation she should take instead, Coulter replied, “Take a camel.” Again, this is racist literally by definition, but you denied that it was racist…Why? Is Coulter really worth that? She’s a horrible person who has called 9/11 widows shrieking harpies and said she wishes the planes had hit the NYT building that day instead; why is it so hard to believe that she is also a racist? She supports the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is not a conservative organization, but a white supremacist one. She says changing demographics are a form of “white genocide,” a term only used by white supremacists.
Is ther *any* amount of racial slurs or support for racist organizations that would cause you to conclude Coulter shares their racist beliefs?
“The left’s argument that foreigners who come here illegally contribute more to our economy than they take in services is often based on false premises.”
It’s not “the left’s argument,” it’s the conclusion of nearly all economists who have studied the issue, including the right-leaning Cato Institute.
“They aren’t eligible for healthcare,” is one argument. Clearly this is false since hospitals and clinics cannot deny anyone service….somebody picks up the cost and that cost is passed on to the American consumer.”
Do you understand the basic fact that it would actually be cheaper for all of us if they had health insurance?
“Our schools likewise educate the children, crowding our schools and thinning resources meant for American students.”
All of my students are American students, including those who are undocumented. I will not stand for anyone saying otherwise, nor will I stand for the idea that they are “taking” anything from those students who were born here. I’ve had students tell me they and their families almost died on their way to this country; you’re telling me they’re less deserving of an education that anyone else? Absurd.
“The lefts idea of immigration policy is based on fairness, or some equally irrelevant emotion, without concern for negative consequences or cost.”
No. The pro-immigrant side is the only side examining both the costs AND benefits, while the anti-immigrant side exaggerates the costs and ignores the benefits.
“Forget immigration policy for a minute. What about respect for the law?”
Where was your respect for the law in the Bundy affair?
Respect for the law is important. Respect for human dignity and ethics is arguably more important. When the two conflict, the law should change.
Now here is an interesting contrast. Piss Chris declares Ann Coulter is a racist for using racial data to make a point about illegal immigration.
This is the same Piss Chris who defends alleged serial rapist Bill Clinton and his alleged rape enabler wife.
Moreover, just like Trump and Coulter, Piss Chris is against illegal immigration. Ergo Piss Chris is not merely a bigoted racist xenophobe, he is a sexist pig.
EVERY RAPE VICTIM DESERVES TO BE HEARD — EXCEPT BY HILLARY CLINTON
Excerpt —
In a campaign built on lies, it should not be a surprise that the central theme of Hillary’s campaign is the biggest lie of all.
Someday, it will be the subject for a graduate thesis whether reporters who were in diapers when Bill Clinton was president simply don’t know the truth or, in their zeal to see Hillary elected, are obscuring the truth.
The media portray Bill Clinton as a lovable scamp, a good ol’ Southern boy who just liked to have sex in the back of his pickup. In fact, according to numerous independent accounts, he was a sexual abuser and, the overwhelming evidence shows, a violent rapist.
…
Either voluntarily or by legal compulsion, a slew of women attested to sexual encounters with Bill Clinton — Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Monica Lewinsky, and several dozen cocktail waitresses along the interstate corridor between Little Rock and Washington. Many more told their stories, but said they were afraid to use their names.
Highly credible women who don’t know one another have given convincing accounts of Clinton’s unwanted sexual attentions, from groping, to flashing to violent rape. Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegation convinced NBC News. It also convinced congressmen, who read her testimony, that they should reverse their positions and vote to impeach Clinton.
You honestly think “Piss Chris” is clever, and not something that sounds like the half-hearted effort of a third grader?
Why aren’t you voting for Trump like your hero Ann Coulter, Pie? All three of you are exactly alike; you engage in petty, childish insults rather than argument, and then pat yourself on the back for being so “witty.” It’s embarassing to watch.