Pro-illegal freaks at Columbia U at it again.

[Jhony5]

Posted by:TDTF:

Blanket statement. Are you saying that ALL Americans are peachy keen perfect little angels, superior to Mexicans or people of other countries by their very nature?

No I'm not. Many Americans suck, true. BUT, they are Americans. To have alien invaders shitting all over my country pisses me me off. And it should you to.

Did you come up with that all by yourself, or did your Imperial Wizard mama help you out?

 

HAIL SATAN!! and what not.

Um, again, CIVIL UNIONS. Name of marriage is protected, but gays are allowed the same rights as married couples by making a similar commitment. Everything you just said is an irrelevant dodge of this simple solution to the problem.

Until two men or two women figure out how to impregnate each other, they don't need to be in a marriage/civil union. Like I said before. Once we climb the slippery slope of redefining marriage, we will see all sorts of crazy requests enter the fray. And why not? Pedophiles and polygamist, hey why can't I marry my pitbull, we're in love?

No, I said it in condemnation of places that hire them en masse and treat them like early 19th century workers to save some bucks from hiring people who are qualified. Wal-Mart, for instance.

What is it you don't get buddy? They are literally dying to come here and do this.

It sounds like all you hear is "you're with all us Americans or you're with them damn dirty Mexicans." You don't acknowledge the complexities of the issue.

Its not a complex issue. Its made that way through the liberal political wrangling. Its a simple problem. Mexicans coming here by the millions overwhelming us with their exported issues. Gain entry through the proper ports with the proper documentation. Learn the language. And there ya go, your an American. Viola!

If you really believe all Mexicans fit your sterotype any more than all Americans fit the stereotype I mentioned, you're truly a fanatic on this issue.

Typical liberal BS! I have already acknowledged the presence of good AMERICAN-Mexicans. I have never met an illegal immigrant that doesn't fit the description I provided.

If all of Mexico was as you say, why do so many Americans flock to Cancun every year for Spring Break?

Step 10 feet outside the designated tourist location and you'll witness the depravity of Mexican people. Actually American tourist cause alot of problems in Mexico with their drunken idiocy. BUT, Americans don't go there to live for two years and send 75% of their income back across the border.

Are you saying that ALL Americans are peachy keen perfect little angels, superior to Mexicans or people of other countries by their very nature?

I never claimed such a thing. Lots of Americans suck, sure. BUT they are Americans. It doesn't make their actions right. But it does at the very least make it OUR problem. Illegals bring THEIR problems here. We have enough issues, and we don't need more to add. This is at the heart of my view. How can we, as Americans, take care of our own issues if millions of spics are adding to the social problems here in America?

[hugo]

So why did the followers of Marx i.e. Lenin, Mao. Pot, Castro result to tolitarianism when they came to power? A simple question to answer. Let me quote Marx;

 

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

 

Private property is what our founding fathers labeled a natural right. In fact the primary purpose of government is to protect lives and property. Wherever property rights are weak you will find widespread poverty. People will always desire private property that is why tolitarian means are needed to severely restrict property rights. Marx's ideas require tolitarian means to carry it out.

 

Let us contrast Marx's quote with two of Locke's

 

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.

 

Government has no other end than the preservation of property.

 

One man's ideas led to prosperity and liberty the other's to poverty and slavery. Good intentions be damned it was Marx who stated "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." One of the rare times he was correct on anything.

[builder]

I am currently working on a patent for my new invention

 

The MEXI-CANNON.

 

Placed at random intervals lining the border. When groups of illegals are caught, just simply place them in the mexi-cannon and shoot those little ******s back to Mexico. How long before word spreads and they stop trying to destroy America?

 

 

Hmmm, seems like you guys have been having some fun.

 

@Jhony5, will you be putting phreakwars in that cannon?

 

Until two men or two women figure out how to impregnate each other, they don't need to be in a marriage/civil union. Like I said before. Once we climb the slippery slope of redefining marriage, we will see all sorts of crazy requests enter the fray. And why not? Pedophiles and polygamist, hey why can't I marry my pitbull, we're in love?

 

Yeah, we haven't got over the slippery slope of stopping our Preists and Politicians from fucking around with paedophilia and promiscuity. Can't have too much on the plate at the one time, can we? So get rid of your wife before you marry the pitbull.

[Jhony5]

Posted by Builder:

@Jhony5, will you be putting phreakwars in that cannon?

If he snuck his illiterate ass across my border illegally, then hell ya. Stuff that fucker in the mexi-cannon and launch 'em back to spicville.

[builder]

Posted by Builder:

If he snuck his illiterate ass across my border illegally, then hell ya. Stuff that fucker in the mexi-cannon and launch 'em back to spicville.

 

Do they get a boarding pass, and an ETA?

 

Or a helmet, for that matter.

[Jhony5]

Do they get a boarding pass, and an ETA?

 

Or a helmet, for that matter.

Only a warning.

 

Thats all it should take.

 

Don't sneak into America like a terrorist, or you face an unceremonious cannon launching.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Posted by:TDTF:

No I'm not. Many Americans suck, true. BUT, they are Americans. To have alien invaders shitting all over my country pisses me me off. And it should you to.

 

 

As I've stated, I support stricter border policies (although coupled with a smaller wait time for legal immigration) However, I don't assume that EVERY person who's illegally immigated does so for the same reason or is trying to "destroy America." Likewise, there ARE plenty of legal immigrants. You seem to see anyone who's Hispanic in America and automatically assume they're both illegal and here to cause trouble. Maybe it's because of where you live or something, but your views are very narrow-minded.

 

Speaking of which, your post is slightly ironic, given that people of European descent, like you and me, forced their way into this country and subjected the previous inhabitants to some of the greatest oppression in history.

 

 

Until two men or two women figure out how to impregnate each other, they don't need to be in a marriage/civil union.

 

 

Um ... Envitro-fertilization? Sperm doners? But are you implying that people shouldn't be allowed to marry or form a "civil union" unless they're going to have kids? That's quite a totalitarian idea, if it's what you're thinking.

 

 

Like I said before. Once we climb the slippery slope of redefining marriage, we will see all sorts of crazy requests enter the fray. And why not? Pedophiles and polygamist, hey why can't I marry my pitbull, we're in love?

 

 

Hence civil unions. A specific term is designated for what they're doing that DOESN'T redefine marriage. Marriage remains a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, but gays have their own deal that gives them the same rights.

 

As for polygamists, if everyone's consenting, I don't see why not.

 

 

Pedophiles and people into beastiality are another discussion. Personally, I'm against the strict sex laws we have now (unless there's clear exploitation, e.g. an 8 year old molested by a 40 year old, in general I don't buy into the "you're physically incapable of consenting until you're 18" crap), but these things are illegal and involve the debate over whether the animals or youngsters are capable of consenting.

 

 

What is it you don't get buddy? They are literally dying to come here and do this.

 

 

Some of them, yes. Most of which being the ones living in the slums who could die soon if they don't move. Which I guess speaks on Mexico needing to work on its ghettos. But that doesn't change the fact that it's shitty when companies hire mass numbers of illegals for low wages to cut bills, rather than hire qualified applicants.

 

 

Its not a complex issue. Its made that way through the liberal political wrangling. Its a simple problem.

 

 

It's simple in the fact that people are crossing the border. But the way they should be defined is more complex than your views.

 

Mexicans coming here by the millions overwhelming us with their exported issues. Gain entry through the proper ports with the proper documentation. Learn the language. And there ya go, your an American. Viola!

 

 

Sure.

 

 

Typical liberal BS! I have already acknowledged the presence of good AMERICAN-Mexicans.

 

I must've missed that part. All I saw was a bunch of "dirty wetback Mexican shitheads, I HATE 'EM!"

 

 

I have never met an illegal immigrant that doesn't fit the description I provided.

 

 

Where do you live?

 

 

 

I never claimed such a thing.

 

 

No, but your posts sure did have a lot of implications of America's inherent superiority. Or at least that's how they came across.

 

Illegals bring THEIR problems here. We have enough issues, and we don't need more to add. This is at the heart of my view. How can we, as Americans, take care of our own issues if millions of spics are adding to the social problems here in America?

 

 

Did you miss WAAAAAAAAY back at the beginning where I said that I support an increase in border security? It was your generalizations of Mexicans as a whole that I disagreed with.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

So why did the followers of Marx i.e. Lenin, Mao. Pot, Castro result to tolitarianism when they came to power? A simple question to answer. Let me quote Marx;

 

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

 

 

Private property is what our founding fathers labeled a natural right. In fact the primary purpose of government is to protect lives and property. Wherever property rights are weak you will find widespread poverty. People will always desire private property that is why tolitarian means are needed to severely restrict property rights. Marx's ideas require tolitarian means to carry it out.

 

 

 

Wrong. Marx assumed that the people themselves would carry out his beleifs without government assistance, then the classless society would make its own non-oppressive order. The reason why his followers became totalitarian has nothing to do with his own views -- it has to do with Lenin. After Lenin, the other "communists" followed HIS theories. You make it sound like each communist leader interpretted Marx in their own way, which is bullshit. Lenin used Marx's beleif in a classless society as an excuse to form a dictatorship, then other would-be dictators followed in his footsteps. Simple as that.

 

 

Let us contrast Marx's quote with two of Locke's

 

 

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.

 

 

Actually, this sounds like the property he's speaking of is the human body itself.

 

 

Government has no other end than the preservation of property.

 

 

 

This, OTOH, is clear-cut. And I agree with Locke's views for the most part.

 

 

 

 

One man's ideas led to prosperity and liberty

 

I don't think "liberty" in the truest sense is found in much of the world. It's all varying degrees of oppression, though we have it pretty good on the world's scale over here.

 

 

the other's to poverty and slavery. Good intentions be damned it was Marx who stated "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." One of the rare times he was correct on anything.

 

 

Sure, but it was Lenin's views in particular that led to what you speak of. And capitalism DID lead to slavery, before Leninist communism did, in fact. Leninist communism also led to prosperity in Russia, making it for a time one of the world's only two super-powers. Of course, the cost for that power was a highly oppressive totalitarian shithole.

 

 

Anyway, I agree that Locke's ideas were more accurate than Marx's. That was never an issue. The issue was the ignorant lumping together of Marx's ideas with Lenin's.

[snafu]

First: what do you consider capitalism? Slavery was around along time before democracy. So was capitalism.

Second: you state that capitalism started slavery but you said you had highly oppressive totalitarian shitholes. I believe oppression and slavery is the same thing. These statements are contradictory.

Third: the classless society would make its own non-oppressive order? How do you get a classless society from Marxism? There have always been separate classes in Marxisim.

 

 

Class:

Marx believed that class identity was configured in the relations with the mode of production. In other words, a class, is a collective of individuals who have a similar relationship with the means of production (as opposed to the more common-sense idea that class is determined by wealth alone, ie. high class, middle class, poor class).

 

Marx describes several social classes in capitalist societies, including primarily:

 

 

Leninist communism also led to prosperity in Russia, making it for a time one of the world's only two super-powers.

 

Please explain how Leninis communism led to prosperity.

 

You will always have a bottom rung on the ladder. These people will be oppressed.

[Jhony5]

Posted by TDTF:

Speaking of which, your post is slightly ironic, given that people of European descent, like you and me, forced their way into this country and subjected the previous inhabitants to some of the greatest oppression in history.

Oh fucking spare me. Don't play that card. Its irrelevant.

But are you implying that people shouldn't be allowed to marry or form a "civil union" unless they're going to have kids?

 

If you want to be married with children then don't be a faggot. Rules of life. Get over it. Marriage is for men and women, mutually. This "civil union" bullshit is simply a way for fags to cry about feeling left out.

Where do you live?

Indianapolis, and It's infested with the immigrant menace. I am constantly confronted at work (I'm a manager for a major grocery chain) with idiot illegals that get pissed off when I can't provide them with a translator for their questions. It happens several times weekly. A spic will approach me with his/her food stamp voucher in hand, speaking garbledy gook. Pointing at the government provided freebie stamps in their hand and saying some Chinese sounding bullshit. As soon as they realize I don't give a fuck, they get all pissed because I can't speak Mexicanese. Its not my problem. Its their problem. Once I had to call the sheriff because I had a whole gaggle of piss drunk Mexicans in my store at 4am trying to buy beer. They didn't understand the local liquor laws prohibiting sales after 3am, or rather they didn't understand the language I was speaking (silly me:rolleyes: ). The drunks were refused service. So they go out into the parking lot and do donuts in their van until the sheriff arrives. They had 9 copies of the same fake greencard. All with the same picture and name. This is not an isolated incident. Shit like this happens several times a week.

No, but your posts sure did have a lot of implications of America's inherent superiority. Or at least that's how they came across.

IT IS WHAT IT IS!!! Go ahead and say that America IS NOT superior to Mexico in every way. Go on? Racist statement? Or simple blunt truth?

Did you miss WAAAAAAAAY back at the beginning where I said that I support an increase in border security? It was your generalizations of Mexicans as a whole that I disagreed with.

Border security isn't what I'm directly worried about. Its the bastards that live here in Indy that are fucking up my groove. Border security doesn't do squat to address the millions of invaders that have planted foot on my turf. Yes, there are more on their way, thousands everyday. BUT. But there are millions of illegals, criminals by default, they are lobbying our political system for rights to our land, to our freedoms. To them I say clearly. Motherfucker, GET OUT! Tolerance is a poison. A blackened cancer that is eating at our land.

 

So go on feeb. Tolerate two big bear looking men standing at the alter in leather chaps. Tolerate illiterate criminal immigrants sucking our resources dry. Tolerate it because Its politically correct to do so. Its the nice thing to do.

 

Nice guys finish last.

[snafu]

What ultra-liberalism? Between the extreme crackdown in censorship from Ashcroft's FCC, the reduction of civil rights from The Patriot Act in order for greater security, the constant war and threats to invade anywhere Dubyah deems an outlaw regime, and the Republicans' virtual monopoly of two of the three branches of government, I don't see how you could consider the current regime anything but ultra-conservative. The repressiveness is growing rather than shrinking, too.

 

Yeah, those students were fucktards and border control should be increased, but don't pretend this kind of thing reflects a trend when it's more of an abberation.

 

 

 

Were on earth have you been in the last 5 to 10 years? Ultra-liberalism has been running ramped. The liberals are more concerned in getting into office. We’ve had to fight them at every turn. Troop deployment, armament, Sentry’s not allowed to carry loaded weapons so as to not offend a rouge nation. Only to be attacked with no repercussions. Tying the government’s hands from the wire taps and Patriot Act (which I find very close to treasonous).

The Patriot Act was passed 98 to 1 in Senate an 357 to 66 in the House.

 

Who’s civil rights have been violated by the Patriot Act?

 

The Patriot Act and the wire taps are probably the best line of defense we have and the liberals would rather jeopardize the American way for a few petty criminals that are worried they might get caught doing something wrong.

 

I found this on a site and it says it pretty good

They (Liberals) defend, to the point of treasonously revealing intelligence gathering operations, the right to privacy, which is written nowhere in the Constitution, but think “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is negotiable.

Fuck the liberals.

 

DON'T FORGET THE USS COLE!