The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Slowly

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Slowly

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Mon 30, 2015 4:00 pm

As soon as they can import enough of the right kind of people...
"National Sovereignty is so last century"

Lorenzo Gritti for The Boston Globe

op ed. By Stephen Kinzer March 26, 2015

Maps of the world are deceptive. By showing neat borders, they trick us into believing countries are independent and separate from each other. They also suggest countries and governments are the main forces in world politics. That was the case for a few centuries, but it won’t be for long. National sovereignty is so yesterday.

States are slow-moving behemoths. Few are nimble enough to adapt to a rapidly changing world. State power, which used to be nearly absolute, is withering under a sustained assault from increasingly empowered forces like corporations, terrorist groups, mercenary armies, and international organizations.

The decline of the nation-state, already well underway, will be one of the most important developments of the 21st century. National borders are likely to change. Places we now know as Spain, Nigeria, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia may cease to exist in their present forms. More important than possible changes in borders, however, is their decreasing importance. Local governments will become more influential than national ones. Tribalism will return, as disparate peoples forced together by brutal nation-building processes will separate.

This is not as radical a transformation as it seems. In fact, it is a return to the way the world was run for most of human history. The idea of sovereign nations, which was based on the belief that long-existing forms of group identification would fade away, is a modern construct. It shaped global politics for nearly 300 years. That era is slowly ending.

The first sustained assault on the nation-state came when multinational corporations began to emerge a century ago. They considered themselves entitled to resources and markets in foreign countries. Today, these corporations command more resources than many nations. Their wealth and power allows them to tell governments what to do. Those that comply remain in power, though with limited freedom of action. Those that resist risk destruction.
View Story
The great deglobalizing

Our interconnected world is shrinking back toward its national borders — and that’s a problem.

The creation of the United Nations in 1945 marked the beginning of an era in which global organizations undermined national sovereignty. The UN, and the concept of “international law,” embody the seductive dream that countries can be persuaded to live according to rules set by others. This principle was embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It continued with UN-sanctioned wars against countries like Yugoslavia that were deemed uncooperative.

Today, it finds its most radical expression in the concept of “responsibility to protect,” which holds that faraway nations or groups of nations can decide whether a particular government is good or bad and, if it is too bad, attack and seek to crush it.

Nongovernmental organizations have jumped onto this bandwagon. Many consider themselves defenders of the oppressed. Regardless of whether one approves of their work, it is indisputably an attack on the idea of national sovereignty. Denouncing governments that are judged unfair to dissidents, women, religious minorities, gays, children, the handicapped, or anyone else is based on the premise that outside forces know better than local leaders how a country should be governed.

The most striking proof of the decline of the nation-state is the dramatically growing power of mercenary armies. Some countries — notably, the United States — now contract out much war-fighting to private corporations. Global charities like World Vision and Save the Children routinely hire “security contractors” to protect their enclaves. German mercenaries are reportedly fighting alongside pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine. Nigeria has hired South African mercenaries to fight the terror group Boko Haram. Private armies are the wave of the future.

To any student of ancient history, or even the history of the Middle Ages, this world order looks very familiar. Outposts such as the Venetian Republic and cities of the Hanseatic League were established mainly for trading purposes. Ottoman principalities were small and mostly homogenous, governed by local satraps within guidelines set by a distant potentate. The British hired German mercenaries to fight colonists in North America. National armies, where they existed, paled before the power of Crusaders, and armies-for-hire like the Knights Templar — not to mention rampaging hordes bent on conquest for looting.

In a world of true national sovereignty, every country would be free to set its own domestic and foreign policies. We pretend that we live in such a world. That is a delusion, as any Tibetan, Ukrainian, or Guatemalan could attest. The idea of nation-states with territorial integrity seemed like a good answer to the chaos of the 17th century. It may not survive the 21st.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html
Stephen Kinzer is a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.
So if the idea of constitutional democracy, being the glue of our sovereignty, has a naturally limited shelf life, maybe other, lesser, man conceived concepts, like gay marriage or one world government, will also begin to fade away as soon as we realize just how little most of us need them. Maybe the concept of the United States will outlive them.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4591
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Joseph » Mar Mon 30, 2015 11:23 pm

The most striking proof of the decline of the nation-state is the dramatically growing power of mercenary armies. Some countries — notably, the United States — now contract out much war-fighting to private corporations.
But, hasn't the US military been a mercenary army for several decades - doing the dirty work and obeying the orders of the New World Order banksters and NeoCons?
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Tue 31, 2015 5:20 pm

Article;
The most striking proof of the decline of the nation-state is the dramatically growing power of mercenary armies. Some countries — notably, the United States — now contract out much war-fighting to private corporations.
Joseph wrote;
But, hasn't the US military been a mercenary army for several decades - doing the dirty work and obeying the orders of the New World Order banksters and NeoCons?
Right. This stuff has been in the works since the inception of the UN in 1945. By the time NAFTA rolled around in the mid 1990's you had to have some idea about where things were heading. The odd thing about this article though is the glaring absence of any discussion of what style of government this world wide government will take on and how this style will benefit all these sub-groups its proponents have used and manipulated as lackies all those decades.

Hillary is toast but there is still her running mate Jeb. Will we yet again fall into the same fatal trap of thinking there is some real difference, for the common man ,between voting for one or the other? There are no Republicans or Democrats. That is the concept that is truly "last century" to use a term from the article's headline. Constitutional democracy has yet barely been tested.

Does Jeb's brother George care one wit whether we call the new world government socialist, communist, or fascist as long as there is a one world government established? Its all the same to them.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9689
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by JIMD » Mar Tue 31, 2015 6:41 pm

"Hillary is toast but there is still her running mate Jeb"

Good line, I don't understand how anyone could vote for one or the other. I'd hold my nose and vote for Bush I'm hoping for a different person.
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Thu 02, 2015 1:51 pm

I don't understand how anyone could vote for one or the other. I'd hold my nose and vote for Bush I'm hoping for a different person.
Well yeah, voting republican would effectively cut out the middle man democratic party with alot of their extraneous lackey bureaucrats along with much of their useless social programming. But in the long run voting for Jeb and his establishment (Rhino) faction of the GOP will do nothing to save the evaporating rights of the common American man. We would still just be slaves to the corporation rather than the state.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4215
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Mac66 » Apr Thu 02, 2015 5:04 pm

George Will:
When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Thu 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Mac66 wrote:George Will:
When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Image

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12090
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by specialties » Apr Thu 02, 2015 9:17 pm

Y'all have a true King, and a new government along with it....
Let the pretenders beware...

No need to make it violent, I think they are taking the laughing serious enuf to actually clean up their acts, soon as possible...
Remember, you heard it from 'We the People'...

( all this schmutz has been tried before, still wishing you luck )

Nobody does it better...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Fri 03, 2015 9:34 am

George Will
When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland.
Are you saying Jeb Bush is a conservative? Compared to who? Ted Cruz?
Rand Paul?

What is George Will's definition of conservative and how does that definition work within the context of this thread?
Agree wholeheartedly.
If we cant see through these declarations from on high by so called conservatives whose time has come and gone then we're looking at yet one more presidential election with two candidates who represent no real choice. Time to break the spell.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4215
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Mac66 » Apr Fri 03, 2015 10:36 am

Are you saying Jeb Bush is a conservative?
And you are saying he's not?

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Fri 03, 2015 11:41 am

Vlad_Rap wrote:... Are you saying Jeb Bush is a conservative? Compared to who? Ted Cruz?
Rand Paul? ...
Over the course of eight years, Bush signed into law $19 billion in tax cuts. He sought to privatize key government providers, including foster care, state parks and even legal aid to death row prisoners. His business-friendly state's bonds were top-rated.

He reshaped Florida by wiping out 13,000 government jobs and vetoing $2 billion in new spending, an economic approach influenced by the conservative gospels of Milton Friedman. He enforced conservative solutions on taxes, gun control, dismantling affirmative action in universities, taking on teachers unions over testing and performance.
During his second inaugural address in 2003, he gazed out at government offices and said "there would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we make these buildings around us empty of workers, silent monuments to a time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill."
He created the first school-voucher program in the country, allowing students in failing schools to use public money for private-school tuition, a program later struck down by the state Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Another program, also being challenged in court, gives companies a tax credit if they donate for private school scholarships.
What the heck are we looking for? And don't tell me immigration. RWR had the same position. Forget about Cruz and Paul. I like them both but we are not going to nominate a Senator this time.
Image

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Fri 03, 2015 1:32 pm

What the heck are we looking for? And don't tell me immigration. RWR had the same position. Forget about Cruz and Paul. I like them both but we are not going to nominate a Senator this time.
What the heck are we looking for?
Something better. Something close to what we deserve.
And don't tell me immigration
Well of course you don't want to hear it but the immigration issue lay at the heart of our national sovereignty and our national sovereignty, or the perpetuation of the legal borders of the United States. Preserving what is, is the essence of true conservative philosophy. Our sovereignty and the rule of law is what sets us apart- makes us exceptional. It is the only hope of this world. These other things you list are also important - just far less so.
Forget about Cruz and Paul. I like them both but we are not going to nominate a Senator this time.
If we're not vigilant we could end up with the Secretary of State, or worse, a former Secretary of State.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Fri 03, 2015 8:22 pm

Here is what the "real" Conservatives want ... Kick them all out and build a reverse Berlin Wall.

Here is what the liberals want ... make them all citizens register them as Democrats ... and keep em coming.

Here is the end game ... they stay, we make them legal resident aliens ... not citizens. And in return we shore up the border control.

The difference between Bush and Cruz? Cruz wouldn't make a deal, they will still be here and without 60 senate seats, little will be done to get the border as under control as we want. Bush, Rubio, Christie, Walker, Kasich, Jindal, Romney, etal WOULD make the deal and we would get the border more controlled.

Why, because they have been in charge of something before and they understand what Mick J. knew so well ... That in a republican form government, you can't always get what you want ... but if you try ,,, sometimes ... you get what you need.

Did we deserve RWR? I think we did. But he would fall in the RINO category with this issue alone. He was only good on those "far less important" important issues like the economy, cutting taxes, winning the cold war ... trivial stuff.
Image

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12090
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by specialties » Apr Sat 04, 2015 7:31 am

Image
Image
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Sat 04, 2015 8:28 am

MARCH SADNESS: JOBS LAME...

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...

Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...

Record 56,131,000 Women...

Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...
Image

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4215
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Mac66 » Apr Sat 04, 2015 3:32 pm

A little context:

a year just ended in which job gains averaged 269,000 a month,

a tough winter that kept people off the roads and out of the shops;

big dip in oil prices;

oil savings not being spent;

Average hourly wages rose a solid 0.3% in March;

labor-force participation rate fell a tick to 62.7%.

Agreed, not enough people working, don't care which color.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Sun 05, 2015 12:39 pm

Mac66 wrote;
And you are saying he's not?
...referring to the question ,"is Jeb Bush a consevative".

from article;
Denouncing governments that are judged unfair to dissidents, women, religious minorities, gays, children, the handicapped, or anyone else is based on the premise that outside forces know better than local leaders how a country should be governed.
There is no argument whether national sovereignty is the basis of conservatism. Yet it is a glaring omission in M.Casper's impressive list of Jeb's achievements as governor of Florida. Jeb embraces amnesty and open borders as did his brother George. Open borders and national sovereignty just do not go hand in hand. George W Bush, as we all have come to realize, was a corporatist. Corporatists are that other group of elitists, similar in ambition but not liberal democrats, who are beyond any real national affiliation, and are absolutely sure they know what is best for the rest of us- despite how much we may disagree with our votes.

Regardless of all his accomplishments in good government it is that one glaring omission that tells us clearly who Jeb will serve should he be voted as president. So, to answer your question -NO- Jeb is not a conservative.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Sun 05, 2015 3:12 pm

Vlad_Rap wrote:... ...Jeb embraces amnesty and open borders as did his brother George. Open borders and national sovereignty just do not go hand in hand. George W Bush, as we all have come to realize, was a corporatist. Corporatists are that other group of elitists, similar in ambition but not liberal democrats, who are beyond any real national affiliation, and are absolutely sure they know what is best for the rest of us- despite how much we may disagree with our votes.

Regardless of all his accomplishments in good government it is that one glaring omission that tells us clearly who Jeb will serve should he be voted as president. So, to answer your question -NO- Jeb is not a conservative.
What a load of cr@p.

I have been on this planet for 52 years, in that time the R's have nominated 9 people to run for POTUS ...

In order of most to least conservative ...

B Goldwater
R Reagan
GW Bush
M Romney
GHW Bush
R Nixon
J McCain
B Dole
G Ford

Every one supported what Jeb Bush supports or an even more liberal approach.

You know what RWR thought ... here is Barry Goldwater ...
Goldwater recommended expansion of a temporary-worker program: “I am the co-sponsor of legislation that would establish a temporary-worker program under which Mexican nationals could enter the United States. This type of program could be extended to other primary sending countries of illegal aliens. It addresses labor market needs for seasonal agricultural workers in a regulated fashion. American workers would be protected under my bill. Visas would be good for 180 days, not necessarily consecutive. This ‘Bracero’-type program would control the number of workers coming in, provide monitoring and channel the flow of illegal aliens through a legal mechanism.”

Goldwater then offered a litany of suggestions: better inspection, detection, surveillance and manpower capabilities for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Patrol and Customs Service. “Our personnel do an admirable job under often trying circumstances, but they need more funds, improved equipment and more manpower,” the senator wrote. “We need a clearer U.S. immigration policy that is actually enforced. We need increased cooperation with the countries that are sending illegal aliens.”

Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2009/12/ ... z3WSjylhWr
When did we have your definition of conservative running exactly?

You have eliminated everyone. Was Eisenhower more conservative? Of course not.

WHY? Because people who actually get elected to office should have read the Constitution and realized how a republic works. You have to win majorities to pass legislation. Compromise has become a treasonous word in an era of 24 hour news and talk radio, but everything ever accomplished in our country ... Including the Constitution itself ... was born of compromise.

You might find your uncompromising conservative ... but he/she will not win a majority vote. And if by some miracle they did ... they would achieve nothing if they thought they could just ram it through ... that isn't the way our country is designed ... and for very good reason.

And one last point ... Even on an Attila the Hun scale, Jeb Bush would still be labeled a conservative.
Image

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4215
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Mac66 » Apr Sun 05, 2015 3:17 pm

Compromise has become a treasonous word in an era of 24 hour news and talk radio, but everything ever accomplished in our country ... Including the Constitution itself ... was born of compromise.
Exactly right.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12090
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by specialties » Apr Sun 05, 2015 5:24 pm

Why not some compromise now by using Congress who in turn should reflect what 'We the People' feel??

Instead of the 'Emperor Jones' model...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Sun 05, 2015 8:13 pm

specialties wrote:Why not some compromise now by using Congress who in turn should reflect what 'We the People' feel??

Instead of the 'Emperor Jones' model...
The chance for a good compromise was a R' POTUS and and R' congress ... but by the time W. moved it, the D's had taken over. The partisans never wanted a resolution in 07. If the D's ever wanted one, they would have done it in 09 or 10.

And FYI: We the people feel this way ...

Image

Even a majority of the Tea Party agrees with me ... Not Cruz.

Image
Image

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12090
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by specialties » Apr Mon 06, 2015 8:51 am

A point well made on THIS question, but do we really have to give up our Constitution and our Congress for a dictatorial rule ???
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4591
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Joseph » Apr Mon 06, 2015 9:16 am

Mac66 wrote:
Compromise has become a treasonous word in an era of 24 hour news and talk radio, but everything ever accomplished in our country ... Including the Constitution itself ... was born of compromise.
Exactly right.

But the CP-US and sundry Leftoid Termites have been working intensively and methodically through Academia and the Main Stream Media to re-shape and define the political and social landscape. What was 'Center' is now 'Fascist Right Wing; what was 'Left' is now 'Center,' - in their portrayal.

It seems that the 'compromise zone' is not what it used to be. This is 'Progress'?
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4591
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Joseph » Apr Mon 06, 2015 9:18 am

MCasper wrote:
specialties wrote:Why not some compromise now by using Congress who in turn should reflect what 'We the People' feel??

Instead of the 'Emperor Jones' model...
The chance for a good compromise was a R' POTUS and and R' congress ... but by the time W. moved it, the D's had taken over. The partisans never wanted a resolution in 07. If the D's ever wanted one, they would have done it in 09 or 10.

And FYI: We the people feel this way ...

Image

Even a majority of the Tea Party agrees with me ... Not Cruz.

Image

Were the same respondents asked about border security?

Can't ask one question without the other.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Mon 06, 2015 10:26 am

Joseph wrote: Were the same respondents asked about border security?

Can't ask one question without the other.
Good news, Jeb agrees with you ...
To summarize what Jeb proposes in this book (which he does in chapter 1, entitled "A Proposal for Immigration Reform," and then details the policy and politics of that proposal for the rest of the book):

Fundamental Reform: Comprehensive interrelated approach because system as a whole is broken, and to achieve bipartisan consensus.

A Demand-Driven Immigration System: Replace overriding preference for family reunification with work-based immigration.

An Increased Role for the States: Share federal authority over immigration policy [such as] social services and providing benefits.

Dealing With Current Illegal Immigrants: We propose a path to permanent legal resident status for those who plead guilty to having entered our country illegally as adults and who have committed no additional crimes of significance.

Border Security: Broader immigration reform is an essential component of border security; we can't do one without the other.

Toward a More Vibrant Future: Getting immigration policy right will allow us to reclaim the prosperity that in recent years has eluded our grasp.

Image

http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration_Wars.htm
Image

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Mon 06, 2015 10:32 am

Vlad_Rap wrote:... Jeb embraces amnesty and open borders as did his brother George. ...
Let me get back to your above statement for a second.

It is provably false in every respect.

So how do we have have any discussion when you won't first get your facts straight?
The combination of laziness and anti-Bush sentiment has led to widespread misunderstanding about Jeb Bush’s views on immigration ... Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... n-radical/
Image

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by HokieAl » Apr Mon 06, 2015 1:32 pm

The "act of love" excuse was pathetic though.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Mon 06, 2015 3:55 pm

HokieAl wrote:The "act of love" excuse was pathetic though.
Again, we as conservatives have always believed that. Here is the funder of modern conservatism ...

America, (Barry) Goldwater wrote, “is like a magnet that draws people from other, perhaps less-fortunate, countries, and many of these countries are in close proximity to the United States.” He continued in a sympathetic tone: “With the incentive of a better life, people will brave laws and obstacles to come here. Thus, this is a complex problem with no easy solution.”

Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2009/12/ ... z3WYkw95jK
When you read Jeb's full thought, how is what he said different?
"There are means by which we can control our border better than we have. And there should be penalties for breaking the law," he added. "But the way I look at this -- and I'm going to say this, and it'll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families -- the dad who loved their children -- was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families."
“But I understand family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande River. And see, what I understand is, that when you’re a man who got kids to feed, and you are making 50 cents and you can look up north and see the chance to make $50 and your kids are hungry, that you are going to come.” -- GW Bush
"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan said in 1984.
Image

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by HokieAl » Apr Mon 06, 2015 4:07 pm

Not much different than saying robbing a bank to feed your family is an act of love.

It's illegal, they know that coming in, and they come anyway - and the simple reason is that they know that we won't do anything about it. I realize it may be out of desperation and that they've weighed the consequences and have determined that it's better to enter illegally and try to get away with it.

Years ago it was the common knowledge (and it may still be occurring) that there were signs in other countries that said come to MA and get on welfare. Other states may have been advertising this as well, who knows.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Wed 08, 2015 9:53 am

What a load of cr@p.

I have been on this planet for 52 years, in that time the R's have nominated 9 people to run for POTUS ...

In order of most to least conservative ...

B Goldwater
R Reagan
GW Bush
M Romney
GHW Bush
R Nixon
J McCain
B Dole
G Ford

Every one supported what Jeb Bush supports or an even more liberal approach.
Let me try to simplify this for you...

The conditions that exist today did not exist in the days of Goldwater. Back in Barry's day there was a thriving manufacturing economical base. Our borders were secure and Americans were not competing for a few minimum wage jobs in a stagnant economy. Even then something like amnesty was untenable because it did not have the support it has today from soon to be ex-patrioted corporate elitists even though the nation had far less to lose. Today those elitist are crying to get back in and they will with Jeb's help.

George Bush was not a conservative either by the way. Say your looking at a mammal. You think it might be a dog. It walks on four legs, has fur, is a carnivore. It has most of the characteristics of a dog but when it starts purring and meowing you know your not looking at a dog. The Bush's, posing as conservatives, have been purring and meowing to foreign interests since Preston. Jeb is in a position to run for president due to the influence of his name no less than Hillary Clinton. Both will do what is expected of them.

The question of who is the best conservative is beside the point anyway. It is a distraction away from the real question posed by the lead article of this thread. That question is, what sort of leadership will deliver us from lapsing into a condition of corporate or state fascism.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Wed 08, 2015 5:34 pm

These days any argument over which party is correct is, "so yesterday."


User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Wed 08, 2015 7:49 pm

Oh. I had no idea you were this far gone? Sander Hicks... really?

http://www.sanderhicks.com/truthtour.html
Image

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12090
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by specialties » Apr Thu 09, 2015 6:55 am

Here Scott Walker gets a real dressing down from the bama and an endorsement from Charles Krauthammer who uses the n and p words...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/boom-k ... ipdWIxM.99

Bound to send bobkat searching...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Sat 11, 2015 5:04 pm

Oh. I had no idea you were this far gone? Sander Hicks... really?
The chance for a good compromise was a R' POTUS and and R' congress ... but by the time W. moved it, the D's had taken over. The partisans never wanted a resolution in 07. If the D's ever wanted one, they would have done it in 09 or 10.
It's small wonder you think this person's views are out there. You still believe establishment republicans like Jeb Bush have the best interests of the middle class, common man, first and foremost in their hearts.

How can a true Tea Party representative or senator compromise with the interests of the middle class? To them the middle class is the life's blood of the country. It is what makes this country work. To compromise those interests, for Tea Party republicans, would amount to treason.

The main thing the establishment republicans and the democrat social engineers have in common is the utter disdain for the American middle class common man.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13951
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by MCasper » Apr Mon 13, 2015 11:53 am

Vlad,

No idea where you are coming from here. It is a fact that more government equals smaller middle class.

More regulation helps big, not small business.
More welfare puts more citizens on the dole and out of reach of the middle class.
Race politics makes it harder for minorities to thrive.

The guy you cite is a socialist 911 truther??

Last point...

YES, the middle class is shrinking. In 1967, 53% of Americans were middle class. By 2014, only 41% were.
NO, this is not a BAD THING. Because they didn't go down, they went UP!

Image

Right wing spin you say? NO. The NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... 0002&abg=0
Image

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Tue 14, 2015 3:47 pm

No idea where you are coming from here. It is a fact that more government equals smaller middle class.

More regulation helps big, not small business.
More welfare puts more citizens on the dole and out of reach of the middle class.
Race politics makes it harder for minorities to thrive.
I don't disagree with any of this but I do wonder what you think Jeb Bush is going to do to help the middle class. I think he will do about as much as Hillary would despite her new populist tone. Any good either of them might do would be incidental as they go along their way doing the bidding of the foreign interests who will contribute so heavily to each of their campaigns. Hillary's goal is $2.5 billion. Can you imagine! Jeb will be right around there since these foreign interests often contribute to both sides. Unlike us Americans they are not hung up on outdated tags such as Democrat and Republican. They just want results. As the lead article of this thread suggests the United States as a constitutional republic often stands in the way of these corporations and banks of attaining the kind of power they want and are sure they deserve. The article suggests how these foreign interests will continue to instigate the middle class by continuing to attack our civil rights until we regress into a states rights type of regionalism as we were before our Civil War. We will be pitted against each other in conflict until our friends the demkocrats and republicans step in and offer us their obvious solution - One World Government.

The article seems to be asserting voting Democrat may buy us some time. Hopefully by the time the election rolls around many more of us will see through that lie too.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Fri 17, 2015 1:10 pm

The difference between Bush and Cruz? Cruz wouldn't make a deal, they will still be here and without 60 senate seats, little will be done to get the border as under control as we want. Bush, Rubio, Christie, Walker, Kasich, Jindal, Romney, etal WOULD make the deal and we would get the border more controlled.
Who says our immigration policy is broken to begin with? It is not broken because it is unworkable. It is broken because Barack Obama and Jeb Bush, working closely with the main stream media, says it is. Then they do whatever they can to obstruct putting the laws to work as they should. Americans should be more wary about what issues main stream, milk toast, media flunkies try to tell us are most important.

The singular mission of main stream media is Clinton v Bush on Nov. 2016 and will push whatever stories they see as conducive to that end.

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by HokieAl » Apr Fri 17, 2015 1:46 pm

Vlad_Rap wrote: Who says our immigration policy is broken to begin with?
I don't think it is. I think what's broken is the enforcement of the laws. The latest term, "prosecutorial discretion" is BS. How can an illegal get govt. benefits? How can an illegal get a valid drivers license? What's up with "sanctuary cities"? Our government has become very corrupt. That's the problem IMO.

“Technically it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts”. Said by the attorney general. Blows my mind.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 872
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The Advocacy of Violent Overthrow...Just Slowly -Very Sl

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Fri 17, 2015 3:09 pm

I don't think it is. I think what's broken is the enforcement of the laws. The latest term, "prosecutorial discretion" is BS. How can an illegal get govt. benefits? How can an illegal get a valid drivers license? What's up with "sanctuary cities"? Our government has become very corrupt. That's the problem IMO.
Yes. So, beyond the obvious motives the two "parties" have for supporting amnesty, what do they think there is to gain for the country by adopting it? Sometimes I think there is no other motive than to watch the country tear itself apart.
“Technically it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts”. Said by the attorney general. Blows my mind.
Wow! Right! We're in deep trouble when our officials have given up even trying to have our laws make sense.

Post Reply