One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Immigration on the left, bigotry on the right
Page <<first <prev 4 of 16 next> last>>
Nov 25, 2014 09:32:36   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
DennisDee wrote:
Actually the cooperation ended when this extremist wacko was elected . Bush supported and signed many major Democrat authored bills including Kennedy's NO Child Left Behind and Paul Sarbanes " Sarbanes Oxley". Homeland Security was an idea Joe Lieberman suggested in the 90s. Obama talks bipartisanship but his actions never reflect it.


Well, if you were to actually look at the situation objectively you would notice that it wasn't Obama but the Republicans in Congress that changed the tune. All those bi-partisan bills during the Bush administration happened because the Democrats in Congress were willing to work with a Republican president even though it turns out he was completely insane.

The Republicans in Congress on the other hand refused to cooperate with Obama from the day he took office.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 09:34:33   #
VladimirPee
 
Do you ever think before posting? Honestly dude. The white birth rate is DOWN. Trying to connect the US Population to religious conservatives seems to be based more on hate than the actual facts.

Since the 1980s amnesty another 11-20 Million illegals have arrived. That's at least an increase of 400%. Using that as a base we can expect to be having this same debate in 20 years for 50 Million illegals. Its common sense.


straightUp wrote:
So I watched the video... nice presentation, pretty pictures, gumballs... But it was hard to take him seriously when the flaws are so obvious from the very start. Apparently other viewers also noted this as indicated in the comments.

Basically, this moron is projecting populations into the middle of the next century based entirely on current rates of immigration as if that's the only factor to consider. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, the current rate of immigration is 884,000/year avg. But compare that to the current rate of American births... 4 million/year!

So if you want to curb the population maybe a better bet would be to change the Republican positions on family planning. I think conservative parents should know that if they're stupid enough to think abstinence is the solution, then chances are their children will be too stupid to actually stick with it. As the song goes, "only stupid people are breeding". Perhaps an exaggeration but there's certainly an underlying truth to that.

But to the credit of the ridiculous right, there *is* the increasing death rate in this country which serves to curb the population to some extent. Mr bubblegum doesn't mention that either. Currently the death rate is 846 per 100,000. That's the median by the way and it's interesting to note that every state with a higher death rate than the national median is a red state.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-rate-by-state/

According to the CDC poor health care is a leading cause. Year after year the U.S. healthcare system winds up in last place in the rankings among developed nations and we are the ONLY country in the world where infant mortality is actually on the rise. But Republicans show zero interest in fixing any of that and when the progressives make an effort to fix it you all go berserk.

Something else to note: What the CDC doesn't list as a cause of death is abortion. According to Roman332.com that is actually the leading cause of death. I'm not vouching for this number but THEY put it at over 900,000 so far this year. That's more than the number of immigrants coming across the country. Again, Republicans want to make this illegal which means (they think) it would be adding 900,000 to the 4 million already being born.

I could go on and on since conservative politics is such an endless supply of contradictions, but I'll get back to the point. Conservative politics is one of the strongest contributors to an increased birth rate and I won't even state my opinion on that, I'm just going to point out how fucked up it is to support that while at the same time blaming an increased population on immigration alone.
So I watched the video... nice presentation, prett... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 09:39:55   #
VladimirPee
 
I think you need to start researching facts and stop forming your opinions based on left wing ideology. I am sure you would realize more often than not that you are just a parrot.

In fact, according to the Census Bureau, more than half of the growth in the U.S. population between 2000 and 2010 was because of growth in the Hispanic population. Between 2000 and 2010 the Hispanic population grew by 43 percent while the non-Hispanic population grew only 5 percent.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/america-race-birth-rates-suggest-white-majority-minority/story?id=13934948



straightUp wrote:
So I watched the video... nice presentation, pretty pictures, gumballs... But it was hard to take him seriously when the flaws are so obvious from the very start. Apparently other viewers also noted this as indicated in the comments.

Basically, this moron is projecting populations into the middle of the next century based entirely on current rates of immigration as if that's the only factor to consider. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, the current rate of immigration is 884,000/year avg. But compare that to the current rate of American births... 4 million/year!

So if you want to curb the population maybe a better bet would be to change the Republican positions on family planning. I think conservative parents should know that if they're stupid enough to think abstinence is the solution, then chances are their children will be too stupid to actually stick with it. As the song goes, "only stupid people are breeding". Perhaps an exaggeration but there's certainly an underlying truth to that.

But to the credit of the ridiculous right, there *is* the increasing death rate in this country which serves to curb the population to some extent. Mr bubblegum doesn't mention that either. Currently the death rate is 846 per 100,000. That's the median by the way and it's interesting to note that every state with a higher death rate than the national median is a red state.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-rate-by-state/

According to the CDC poor health care is a leading cause. Year after year the U.S. healthcare system winds up in last place in the rankings among developed nations and we are the ONLY country in the world where infant mortality is actually on the rise. But Republicans show zero interest in fixing any of that and when the progressives make an effort to fix it you all go berserk.

Something else to note: What the CDC doesn't list as a cause of death is abortion. According to Roman332.com that is actually the leading cause of death. I'm not vouching for this number but THEY put it at over 900,000 so far this year. That's more than the number of immigrants coming across the country. Again, Republicans want to make this illegal which means (they think) it would be adding 900,000 to the 4 million already being born.

I could go on and on since conservative politics is such an endless supply of contradictions, but I'll get back to the point. Conservative politics is one of the strongest contributors to an increased birth rate and I won't even state my opinion on that, I'm just going to point out how fucked up it is to support that while at the same time blaming an increased population on immigration alone.
So I watched the video... nice presentation, prett... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2014 09:59:42   #
VladimirPee
 
I have looked at the situation objectively. Democrats in Congress were able to sell their bills to Bush who listened and those bills had bipartisan support.

Lets take a walk back in history.
On January 24th 2009 Obama held meetings on Stimulus. 4 Days after he was sworn in with Greek Columns and the arrogance of an emperor

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.


January 23, 2009

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate,
he’s not averse to using a jab.
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

October 25, 2010

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won."





straightUp wrote:
Well, if you were to actually look at the situation objectively you would notice that it wasn't Obama but the Republicans in Congress that changed the tune. All those bi-partisan bills during the Bush administration happened because the Democrats in Congress were willing to work with a Republican president even though it turns out he was completely insane.

The Republicans in Congress on the other hand refused to cooperate with Obama from the day he took office.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 10:10:30   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
DennisDee wrote:
Do you ever think before posting? Honestly dude. The white birth rate is DOWN. Trying to connect the US Population to religious conservatives seems to be based more on hate than the actual facts.

The bottom line is that 4 million American babies are born every year. The *white* birth rate doesn't change this. Most of these births are among the Latinos, a very fast growing AND religious demographic. Conservative politics ride on the same religious principals they adhere to.

Nice try.

DennisDee wrote:

Since the 1980s amnesty another 11-20 Million illegals have arrived. That's at least an increase of 400%. Using that as a base we can expect to be having this same debate in 20 years for 50 Million illegals. Its common sense.

Are actually you hoping that switching focus from annual rates to total numbers to date is some how going to change the math? Bottom line is our population is increasing and immigration (according to current rates) is NOT the biggest contribution to that problem a promoted lack of birth control is.

You can spin it however you want - it's not going to change the reality. Or the fact that conservatives.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 10:17:41   #
VladimirPee
 
I am not spinning. Your original post seemed to blame White Religious Conservatives for the problem. Good to see you retreat from that illusion. I think your problem seems to be internal with the strong Catholic Hispanic Dem vote.

By the way. My daughter works for Google and there is no shortage of young tech savvy Americans. Indians are cheaper even when importing them and paying their living expenses. Google and others even have schools in India teaching them.


straightUp wrote:
Are actually you hoping that switching focus from annual rates to total numbers to date is some how going to change the math? Bottom line is our population is increasing and immigration (according to current rates) is NOT the biggest contribution to that problem a promoted lack of birth control is.

You can spin it however you want - it's not going to change the reality. Or the fact that conservatives.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 10:34:26   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
DennisDee wrote:
I have looked at the situation objectively. Democrats in Congress were able to sell their bills to Bush who listened and those bills had bipartisan support.

Yes, because the Democrats were doing their jobs and passing bills for Bush to sign and Bush of course signed the ones that his advisers agreed with and vetoed the rest. Business as usual - almost. (Usually the president is smart enough to know what he's signing.)

DennisDee wrote:

Lets take a walk back in history.
On January 24th 2009 Obama held meetings on Stimulus. 4 Days after he was sworn in with Greek Columns and the arrogance of an emperor

Greek columns... really? How horrible.

DennisDee wrote:

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Well he DID win. Drrr...

DennisDee wrote:

January 23, 2009

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate,
he’s not averse to using a jab.
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

Again... he *did* win. For those of us who actually read about the stimulus package rather than stressing about Greek columns it was quite apparent that the Republicans just wanted to bail out the banks like Bush did without providing any safeguards against it happening again. Obama was taking a stand against corruption and apparently he had to be strong about it. Sorry it pissed YOU off, but it made millions of American very happy to have voted for him.

DennisDee wrote:

October 25, 2010

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won."

Yeah, you know - I actually remember all this. It was when the Republicans first started to show how tyrannical their agenda is outside the White House. They were used to Bush just saying yes to whatever they wanted, whatever corruption they desired. So when Obama said "no" they were beside themselves in disbelief.

"I won" means step back you corrupt bitches, the people elected me to stand up for them and that's what I'm going to do. A welcomed change after eight years of corruption and tyranny against the people.

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2014 10:37:51   #
MajorAhrens Loc: Myrtle Beach
 
straightUp wrote:
Get ready to be disappointed. The only weapon Congress will have in 2015 is the purse which will be ineffective against Obama's immigration policy because it's enforced by the USCIS which doesn't use tax money the USCIS is funded entirely by processing fees.

How ironic and delightfully funny to see the GOP defeated by the lack of taxes. LOL

So it's funny that millions of illegals will eventually be granted citizenship no.matter what the libs say now. Remember, "if you like your Dr." and all the "we have to pass the bill before we know what's in it" line? And we're supposed to believe the Democrats NOW! That's why they got kicked to the curb this last election because they're liar in chief has lost his mojo.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 10:38:30   #
pas Loc: Flordia
 
straightUp wrote:
Well, if you were to actually look at the situation objectively you would notice that it wasn't Obama but the Republicans in Congress that changed the tune. All those bi-partisan bills during the Bush administration happened because the Democrats in Congress were willing to work with a Republican president even though it turns out he was completely insane.

The Republicans in Congress on the other hand refused to cooperate with Obama from the day he took office.


Really? I never heard that about President Reagan. Because he suffered from Alzheimer you figure he was completely insane? Your credibility took a real nose dive. I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative, but I can still be objective, and your comment is vitriolic.

Obama's early rhetoric was amazing and I honestly thought his election held great promise to unite our once great nation...it has only devolved and become more partisan. He clearly is not what I thought he was.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 10:40:54   #
VladimirPee
 
I think you are a little confused. The TARP bailouts were fully supported by Pelosi and Obama. It was the Tea Party that opposed them.

Bush found common ground with Democrats. Obama simply refuses.

Not sure what you are talking about with your Tyrannical comment. Bush lost many issues with internal party dissent. Amnesty was one of them if you recall he supported the Mccain-Kennedy bill


Again your post is filled with blind ideology and ignorant unsupported statements. such as

I won" means step back you corrupt bitches, the people elected me to stand up for them and that's what I'm going to do. A welcomed change after eight years of corruption and tyranny against the people.[/quote]



You elected the most extremist partisan President in US History. Most Americans now realize it except you far left nuts. You prove over and over that you are uninformed.




straightUp wrote:
Yeah, you know - I actually remember all this. It was when the Republicans first started to show how tyrannical their agenda is outside the White House. They were used to Bush just saying yes to whatever they wanted, whatever corruption they desired. So when Obama said "no" they were beside themselves in disbelief.

"I won" means step back you corrupt bitches, the people elected me to stand up for them and that's what I'm going to do. A welcomed change after eight years of corruption and tyranny against the people.
Yeah, you know - I actually remember all this. It ... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 11:06:05   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
DennisDee wrote:
I am not spinning. Your original post seemed to blame White Religious Conservatives for the problem. Good to see you retreat from that illusion.

That was your illusion not mine. I was targeting conservative politics not white politics and as I've said already conservative politics rides on the same religious influence that affects the Hispanic community.

DennisDee wrote:

I think your problem seems to be internal with the strong Catholic Hispanic Dem vote.

No MY problem... YOUR problem. Remember? I'm not the one crying about the increased population here, you are.

DennisDee wrote:

By the way. My daughter works for Google and there is no shortage of young tech savvy Americans. Indians are cheaper even when importing them and paying their living expenses. Google and others even have schools in India teaching them.

Your daughter is referring to the Indians on H1 visas that are housed four or five to a corporate apartment. I know, I work with them too. Many of them want to immigrate and bring their families over and when they do they are suddenly faced with the cost of living here and all of a sudden they aren't so cheap anymore.

This is a point I never get much chance to elaborate on... While conservatives typically focus on borders and walls to keep them out, I pay attention to the fact that economic factors serve much the same purpose and the walls become unnecessary.

If this nation starts to crush under the weight of it's population it won't be as attractive to immigrants any more and they will find other places. If the jobs are all taken up, immigrants will have no reason to come here anymore. Supply and demand seems to be a concept anti-immigration advocates completely forget.

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2014 11:25:18   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
pas wrote:
Really? I never heard that about President Reagan. Because he suffered from Alzheimer you figure he was completely insane? Your credibility took a real nose dive. I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative, but I can still be objective, and your comment is vitriolic.

Who said anything about Reagan? DennisDee and I were talking about Obama and Bush. And yes, Bush was insane - as in a danger to the American people. He started two wars for reasons that aren't obvious to anyone, borrowed his way from a budget surplus to the largest debt since WW2, systematically reversed 20 years of civil rights protections and even created his own unconstitutional judicial system.

pas wrote:

Obama's early rhetoric was amazing and I honestly thought his election held great promise to unite our once great nation...it has only devolved and become more partisan. He clearly is not what I thought he was.

Honestly, why would you think Obama could unite the nation? I never thought that, not even in 2008. I learned during the Bush years how divided this country has become and couldn't see how a single man can change that.

I voted for him because he represented a change from the course Bush was steering and he did extremely well considering the rabid opposition from the right.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 11:28:19   #
VladimirPee
 
The H1 Visa's are to bring in cheap labor not because we do not have enough tech savvy. It brings down the average industry wage you liberals whine about so I don't understand the conflict in your position.

I have seen no evidence that the increase in Hispanic birth is tied in any way to conservative politics. I happen to live in an area which has a very large Mexican population and almost never see any of them in Church and I am Catholic like most of them.
New Poll of Latinos in the U.S. Shows Overwhelming Support For Sex Education and Access to Birth Control to Reduce Teen Pregnancy - See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/new-poll-latinos-us-shows-overwhelming-support-sex-education-access-birth-control-reduce-teen-p#sthash.xkhr70uo.dpuf



straightUp wrote:
Your daughter is referring to the Indians on H1 visas that are housed four or five to a corporate apartment. I know, I work with them too. Many of them want to immigrate and bring their families over and when they do they are suddenly faced with the cost of living here and all of a sudden they aren't so cheap anymore.

This is a point I never get much chance to elaborate on... While conservatives typically focus on borders and walls to keep them out, I pay attention to the fact that economic factors serve much the same purpose and the walls become unnecessary.

If this nation starts to crush under the weight of it's population it won't be as attractive to immigrants any more and they will find other places. If the jobs are all taken up, immigrants will have no reason to come here anymore. Supply and demand seems to be a concept anti-immigration advocates completely forget.
Your daughter is referring to the Indians on H1 vi... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 11:30:57   #
VladimirPee
 
Obama has divided America more than any President since the Civil War. You voted for Change from a man who had no record of changing anything. His resume was 20 years in a Neighborhood of Chicago as organizer and local state senator where he delivered no change. So you voted for speeches is what you are saying.

straightUp wrote:
Honestly, why would you think Obama could unite the nation? I never thought that, not even in 2008. I learned during the Bush years how divided this country has become and couldn't see how a single man can change that.

I voted for him because he represented a change from the course Bush was steering and he did extremely well considering the rabid opposition from the right.

Reply
Nov 25, 2014 11:34:12   #
jimahrens Loc: California
 
First off most do not want to be citizens. Secondly they will use fake id's to avoid taxes and gain entry to welfare system. Will flood our emergency rooms because they will not have insurance. want more. Let them come here legally eveyone else had to.
straightUp wrote:
First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-Communists to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these illegal immigrants were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take pride in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, racism and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme fascism but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on racism and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough voters will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bullshit movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we hate Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.
First, let's get this question of constitutional l... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.