Bob is a racist
- Thread starter timesjoke
- Start date
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
Talk about cherry picking parts of a topic.
Sitting Bull was Lakota Sioux.
My point was, yes. The issue has exploded. The majority of the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens have crossed in the past 20 years when illegal immigration has far outpaced legal immigration.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
There you go, once again, misrepresenting me. I blame the federal government. I've blamed the last administration and the one before. The current one is just as bad, or maybe worse. Never heard of one of the past ones holding border security hostage, while it's citizens are being murdered by the drug runners and criminals on the border, just so he can try to give voting rights to millions of potential followers.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
How does an illegal alien get to vote?
I've been of the opinion that the issue is more to do with there being no "checks and balances" on donations to election campaign funds. Silly me.
By granting amnesty.
What are you talking about on election campaign funds?
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
builder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
Interesting link here
January 31, 2010|By David G. Savage
Reporting from Washington — The most heated controversy over the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down parts of the nation's campaign-funding laws has focused on whether the decision frees foreign corporations to pour money into American elections.
President Obama raised this specter Wednesday in his State of the Union address, saying the ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."
A day later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the president was "completely wrong." He said that a separate law strictly prohibits foreigners and foreign corporations from "any participation in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited before."
Election-law experts say neither claim is quite correct. Although foreign corporations cannot directly put money into U.S. races under the ruling, their U.S. subsidiaries may.
The 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission struck down on free-speech grounds the long-standing federal and state laws that barred corporations and unions from spending money to elect or defeat candidates for office. The decision applied to all corporations, both for-profit firms and nonprofits.
"It means a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation can now spend freely in U.S. elections," said Tara Malloy, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center in Washington.
Among the multinational companies with lobbying operations in Washington are Swiss drug makers, German manufacturers, Japanese and Korean automakers and British aerospace firms. Under FEC rules, a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company could spend money on congressional races, but only if the subsidiary earned the money in the U.S. and its American employees decided on how to spend it.
The regulation says: "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process" for spending money on campaigns.
But many question whether the FEC could police election-spending decisions by multinational firms.
"We have a dysfunctional system currently," said Washington attorney Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman. The agency has been evenly divided, with three Republican and three Democratic appointees, and has been unable to make decisions."
January 31, 2010|By David G. Savage
Reporting from Washington — The most heated controversy over the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down parts of the nation's campaign-funding laws has focused on whether the decision frees foreign corporations to pour money into American elections.
President Obama raised this specter Wednesday in his State of the Union address, saying the ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."
A day later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the president was "completely wrong." He said that a separate law strictly prohibits foreigners and foreign corporations from "any participation in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited before."
Election-law experts say neither claim is quite correct. Although foreign corporations cannot directly put money into U.S. races under the ruling, their U.S. subsidiaries may.
The 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission struck down on free-speech grounds the long-standing federal and state laws that barred corporations and unions from spending money to elect or defeat candidates for office. The decision applied to all corporations, both for-profit firms and nonprofits.
"It means a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation can now spend freely in U.S. elections," said Tara Malloy, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center in Washington.
Among the multinational companies with lobbying operations in Washington are Swiss drug makers, German manufacturers, Japanese and Korean automakers and British aerospace firms. Under FEC rules, a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company could spend money on congressional races, but only if the subsidiary earned the money in the U.S. and its American employees decided on how to spend it.
The regulation says: "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process" for spending money on campaigns.
But many question whether the FEC could police election-spending decisions by multinational firms.
"We have a dysfunctional system currently," said Washington attorney Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman. The agency has been evenly divided, with three Republican and three Democratic appointees, and has been unable to make decisions."
builder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
So, this "dumb Aussie" according to IWS, has no idea of the US/Mexico border issue?
Read this article
WASHINGTON – Mexican drug cartels operating in cities in the U.S. are buying up legitimate businesses to launder money and using some of the proceeds to win local mayoral and city council seats for politicians who can shape the policies and personnel decisions of their police forces, according to Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who has led the fight to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and enforce the nation's immigration laws.
In his new book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security," Tancredo exposes what he has learned from meetings with law enforcement authorities regarding a concerted effort by the Mexican mafia and drug cartels to extend their corruptive influence in urban areas dominated by illegal alien populations.
Tancredo says some of these small cities have become hostile and dangerous places for legitimate law enforcement officials.
"The Tijuana-based Felix drug cartel and the Juarez-based Fuentes cartel began buying legitimate business in small towns in Los Angeles County in the early 1990s," he writes in his new book published by WND Books. "They purchased restaurants, used-car lots, auto-body shops and other small businesses. One of their purposes was to use these businesses for money-laundering operations. Once established in their community, these cartel-financed business owners ran for city council and other local offices. Over time, they were able to buy votes and influence in an effort to take over the management of the town. They wanted to create a comfort zone from which they could operate without interference from local law enforcement."
--------------------------------------------
It goes on and on. So, the question is, why is IWS denying it? It's been going on since Clint Eastwood was a boy.
Corruption and American-style "democracy" go hand-in-hand. That's probably why spreading it to new regions meets so much local resistance.
It has fukk-all to do with democracy, and everything to do with autocracy or plutocracy.
Put that in your peace-pipe and smoke it.
Read this article
WASHINGTON – Mexican drug cartels operating in cities in the U.S. are buying up legitimate businesses to launder money and using some of the proceeds to win local mayoral and city council seats for politicians who can shape the policies and personnel decisions of their police forces, according to Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who has led the fight to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and enforce the nation's immigration laws.
In his new book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security," Tancredo exposes what he has learned from meetings with law enforcement authorities regarding a concerted effort by the Mexican mafia and drug cartels to extend their corruptive influence in urban areas dominated by illegal alien populations.
Tancredo says some of these small cities have become hostile and dangerous places for legitimate law enforcement officials.
"The Tijuana-based Felix drug cartel and the Juarez-based Fuentes cartel began buying legitimate business in small towns in Los Angeles County in the early 1990s," he writes in his new book published by WND Books. "They purchased restaurants, used-car lots, auto-body shops and other small businesses. One of their purposes was to use these businesses for money-laundering operations. Once established in their community, these cartel-financed business owners ran for city council and other local offices. Over time, they were able to buy votes and influence in an effort to take over the management of the town. They wanted to create a comfort zone from which they could operate without interference from local law enforcement."
--------------------------------------------
It goes on and on. So, the question is, why is IWS denying it? It's been going on since Clint Eastwood was a boy.
Corruption and American-style "democracy" go hand-in-hand. That's probably why spreading it to new regions meets so much local resistance.
It has fukk-all to do with democracy, and everything to do with autocracy or plutocracy.
Put that in your peace-pipe and smoke it.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
I said it's been worse starting about 20 years ago. What was about 20 years ago? The early 1990s, just like your article says. (didn't know 70 something year old Eastwood was a boy in the early 90s. Might want to crack a math book)
You all are the ones saying we shouldn't secure the border, but then you post an article about all the corruption from the Mexican drug cartels in US cities. :blink:
You read an article about a book some guy read and this makes you some kind of expert? Just a little bit of info for you, Tancredo is a whack job.
Also, what the hell is American style "democracy"? The US isn't a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.
That said, yes the cronie-capitalism is a huge problem. From both sides. With one you get it from big business and the other you get it from unions and Wall Street.
That's why I don't understand why the left blames drug violence on the border on drug users in the US, but constantly try to regulate away all the problems with banks, oil companies, Wall Street, to prevent lobbyists from having influence, but like the problem with border violence being with the end user, maybe they should realize that if the politicians weren't corruptable, there wouldn't be a need to regulate lobbyists.
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
This requires an essay type answer, Don't have time right now so let me give what I feel are the major reasons.
1) George W. Bush was liberal on immigration issues. This meant that the Republicans could not make a big issue on immigration without undermining a President of their party. They could not make it a wedge issue until they had a Democrat for Prez.
2) The recession, and slumping home values have left cities and states with huge budget shortfalls. A bogeyman must be found.
3) Increased drug related violence is crossing the borders.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
This is the problem with your trying to point your finger at America, you have no real concept of what is happening outside of what you "read". Your very socialist so it stands to reason your largest sources for information will reflect what you like to see so most likely your information is severely twisted to promote your socialist ideas, just like most of my sources tend to be conservative and business related.How does an illegal alien get to vote?
I've been of the opinion that the issue is more to do with there being no "checks and balances" on donations to election campaign funds. Silly me.
There is a very long history of Liberals (socialists) who fight any move to make people show identification to vote, just flash a voter card and go in to vote. In these areas, any illegal can walk in and place a vote under any other persons name.
The "reform" that Obama and socialists want included amnesty with a fast tracked path to being a citizen, somewhere up to 20 million new Liberal voters would help them a lot Builder, not to mention all the currently legal hispanics like Chi who would blindly vote Liberal/socialist for the rest of their life as a reward for that action.
Yes, there has been a problem for a long time, but if we waste time and energy only looking in the past, we get more of the same 'non-action'. In the heare and now, Obama has defunded bills that would help, held back from sending help to the border, and refuses to discuss the real problems unless Republicans join him in an amnesty program for the illegals. That is a lot of direct action by the current President to be concerned. Trying to say Bush didn't fix it is no more than a weak excuse, I did not like what Bush did either, he did get a new bill signed into law though and it was Obama who killed it so only Obama is on record for directly making this situation worse.
builder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
Appreciate your candor, Hugo.
Sounds about right. Is there a "shadow" prez? Meaning the head of the party when that party is not in control?
Isn't this a direct outcome of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, Hugo? Is there a scapegoat, except for the banks, of course, for the loose lending practices leading to the sub-prime collapse, prior to the global financial crisis?
It's common knowledge in the psyche industry that substance abuse increases proportionately with financial insecurity. Strange but true. The more money worries we have, the more money we blow on..... well, on blow. Nose candy.
builder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
Out of context. Eastwood westerns predate you and I.
I never ever said you should not secure the border. I have asked you and tj and eddo what method you would use to secure the border. RaE took my suggestion of landmines and walls and hit squads seriously, but that's RaE for you.
You conveniently jumped over the previous post, where your own people are up in arms about the corruption inherent in the funding of election campaigns. Just a little bit of info for you; Tancredo is a republican.
America invades soveriegn nations with the motto of "spreading democracy". Nobody is buying it, because it is so obvious that your form of the word simply means spreading the disease that has infected your own politics. Corruptional Republic.
Wall Street is big business. Unions are for the people.
Read that back to yourself. Very slowly. If it makes sense to you, I'd be surprised.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
Unions "USED" to be about the people, now the officers of those Unions make way more money then the members do, it is big business itself and they weild a powerful force in Liberal politics. Even Obama gave the Unions massive consessions making them imune to the extra taxes for their "Cadillac" healthcare plans that the rest of Americans have to pay.
Today Unions are about raping everyone around them, bully tactics to force people to use their services over non-union entities, and controlling elections as much as possible.
But remember one basic economic fact, for every increase in benefits or pay a Union forces a company to pay, that means an increas in cost for the everyday goods and services to the general public, and that public "IS" the people of America, not the tiny few who work under the Union label and get special treatments that the rest of Americans don't get.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
I'm not up in arms about anything with the Citizen's United ruling. I think it was the right one as the law challenged was unconstitutional. The Democrats are whining because now the Repubs will be able to get the same kind of backing from business as the Dems have been getting an advantage from unions.
I know who Tancredo is. What does him being a Republican have to do with anything? I don't care if he's a Repub or a frakin' alien. He's a whack job. Unlike some, I don't just side by the party affiliation.
Amazing how you bash our system but don't even know what it is. (also amazing that if it's so horrible around the world, why it's the most envied country on the planet. Your own country, Europe and any other free world country wouldn't be sh1t today if you hadn't been able to live under the protective umbrella of our might for the last century)
There is a difference between big business and Wall Street. Big business is the corporations, Wall Street is the investment/brokerage firms and banks. You're living in a fantasy world if you think big unions in the US are for the people. They are for money and power.
It says the left tries to claim that the problem in the drug trade should be addressed at the end user, not the supplier, but with government corruption and lobbyist influence they go after the lobbyists/businesses/etc... but maybe they should follow their own argument on drugs and go after the end user. The corrupt politicians. They can't do that, because just like how Nancy P. is talking of relaxing the ethics rules in congress because her own party members keep getting caught violating them, the politicians would have to actually go after themselves.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
It's amazing. Where is all this horrible corporate influx into politics the Dems and the left claimed, after the Citizens United ruling? Looks like it's still the corrupt, strong arm, mafia type, unions trying to influence campaigns, by almost 3 to 1...
[size="+2"][/size]
http://www.washingto...0602133_pf.html