Post: #126

The worst thing that can happen to the Democrats is for the Republican party to fall apart because once that happens their coalition will fall apart as Hispanics, Asians, Blacks and Gays all hate each other and look at the hipster SWPL Whites with some disgust. With unlimited spending all that's left is dividing up the spoils when the US Dollar collapses after we hit 150% debt to GDP ratio like Greece. When that happens the secessionist movements will begin. The dollar will tumble then fall some more then capital controls will be put in place before people even begin to know whats going on and within 24 hours there will be rationing instituted into the economy as well as price controls. The public, government, military and police forces will not be able to buy fuel and chaos will break out. There will be price caps and rationing it will be nutzzzzzzz but what can you expect from these things it is what it is. This hyperinflation will hit us for the first time will hit us harder than the Soviet Union collapse, Russia's default, Mexico after every sexenio or six year term, and Germany/Austria after WWI this will be us.

Post: #127

(06-13-2014 08:46 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 01:44 AM)tpiddy Wrote:  And you know what? Multicultural america is not going to be that horrible. I live in a very multicultural city and there's amazing food to eat and all types of women to hit on.

Whether or not multicultural America is horrible or not likely depends a lot on where you are on the socio-economic ladder.

For your average upper middle class SWPL-type, multi-cultural America means fun new ethnic restaurants, and a chance to experience new cultures right in your own country, while still being able to retreat to the safety of your low-crime, not-so-diverse top-tier school district neighborhood.

For your average blue-collar working class person, multicultural America means depressed wages, increased competition for jobs, strained public schools, and atomized neighborhoods where nobody has anything common other than geography.

Disagree completely. America is the only country where you can have an armenian and a turk live right next to each other and not hate each other. Or a paki and a Indian. The fact we talk about race using "white vs black" shows how diverse this country is.

They are having civil war in Iraq just based off religious sect of the same religion. Millions slaughtered in Africa due to tribal differences.

I'm not a big fan of some aspects of America, but the multi-cultural aspect is one of the big pluses.

Post: #128

"It doesn't matter who the people vote for. All that matters is who counts the vote."
- Uncle Joe

Now who pays the person who counts the vote?

All this cultural divide debate is smoke and mirrors for something more insidious happening.

Follow the money, audit the fed. Then we'll see who influences who. Everything else is noise.

Post: #129

(06-13-2014 08:57 AM)InternationalPlayboy Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 08:46 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 01:44 AM)tpiddy Wrote:  And you know what? Multicultural america is not going to be that horrible. I live in a very multicultural city and there's amazing food to eat and all types of women to hit on.

Whether or not multicultural America is horrible or not likely depends a lot on where you are on the socio-economic ladder.

For your average upper middle class SWPL-type, multi-cultural America means fun new ethnic restaurants, and a chance to experience new cultures right in your own country, while still being able to retreat to the safety of your low-crime, not-so-diverse top-tier school district neighborhood.

For your average blue-collar working class person, multicultural America means depressed wages, increased competition for jobs, strained public schools, and atomized neighborhoods where nobody has anything common other than geography.

Disagree completely. America is the only country where you can have an armenian and a turk live right next to each other and not hate each other. Or a paki and a Indian. The fact we talk about race using "white vs black" shows how diverse this country is.

They are having civil war in Iraq just based off religious sect of the same religion. Millions slaughtered in Africa due to tribal differences.

I'm not a big fan of some aspects of America, but the multi-cultural aspect is one of the big pluses.

That is because, for the time being, we have enough food and water and our survival instincts are not kicking in.

Our economy is slowly but surely going down the shitter. Eventually govt. programs will be cut. Govt' workers will see their pay slashed, and retired govt. workers will see their pensions burn up into nothing. Food stamps will be cut.

Then you will see the real nature of people come out. And it will be UGLY. It is called tribalism and you see the same things in prison. When you strip people of their ability to survive, they will gang up into their tribes and battle it out with other tribes.

A multi-cultural USA will be a bankrupt violent USA, unless you are able to afford your own armed security and 20 foot walls around your house to keep the hoards out. The elites can do this, so that is why they don't mind.

Post: #130

A lot of people are saying, "Civil War can't happen here!"

It seems they've forgotten that America was built on war, and already had one of the worst Civil Wars in history not even 150 years ago. American's own more guns than any other citizenship on earth, and there is more gun violence, as well as general violence, than any other developed country on the planet. America also has the largest standing army in the world, which further shifts American culture to violence.

If it wasn't for the all-powerful police state, I suspect you'd see mass fights and killings every weekend at bars all over cities in America. The only reason people restrain themselves is because they know they will get caught. I see meatheads and gangbangers every weekend when I'm out, there is just so much potential for violence and chaos in American cities and that's just among those who go out at night. Let's not forget the millions of country folk who would have no problem gunning down intruders.

People who don't think there isn't huge potential for violence in America do not really understand the culture very well. People will start a fight if you don't move out of their way in a bar in America, can you imagine what will happen when the government goes bankrupt and you lose 50-100% of your savings?

Post: #131

(06-12-2014 04:19 PM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  6 US job force participation rate is still at 62.8% vs 66% in 2007. However, a lot of this is attributed to more college students, aging baby boomers and social welfare dependency. Not in the lack of jobs. As a matter of fact, the downtrend of the participation rate began in year 2000. This is really not a good predictor in employment rate anymore.

Actually it's all about the lack of jobs. Retiring baby boomers is also a huge myth, the boomers aren't retiring because they cannot afford to.



In reality, there are more old people working today than there were 20 years ago.

They have no money and must work to survive. This keeps the next generation of Americans out of the workforce. And the reason there are no new entry level jobs for Americans is because there are no jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10...rents-held

Post: #132

(06-13-2014 10:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  A lot of people are saying, "Civil War can't happen here!"

It seems they've forgotten that America was built on war, and already had one of the worst Civil Wars in history not even 150 years ago. American's own more guns than any other citizenship on earth, and there is more gun violence, as well as general violence, than any other developed country on the planet. America also has the largest standing army in the world, which further shifts American culture to violence.

...

People who don't think there isn't huge potential for violence in America do not really understand the culture very well. People will start a fight if you don't move out of their way in a bar in America, can you imagine what will happen when the government goes bankrupt and you lose 50-100% of your savings?

Plus we've got 2.5 million people in prison. If a bunch of them get released, for whatever reason, watch the fuck out.

Post: #133

Samseau, in a civil war scenario - will the Aryans let you fight with them since you're half Korean?

Post: #134

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfek6ydf3M

(06-10-2014 08:38 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Cattle Rustler You mean when this place was just a vast stretch of land and not a nation of laws? Because you are right. Those pilgrims, ans the men that followed them built a nation. Granted its shit now but thats besides the point.

What are you talking about in this quote? It wasn't just a vast stretch of land, it was populated. Just because the Natives and Africans didn't write down their laws and conventions on pieces of paper like the Europeans, didn't give the government the right to do whatever they wanted. Also, the US government broke *their own* laws and agreements in order to take the land. Not to mention they also broke their own moral code (Christianity).

Even some early American settlers recognized how badly the Natives were being treated by the government. There is a moving passage which describes this in the great novel series The Emigrants by Vilhelm Moberg, about Swedes who emigrated to the US. Also, I think the president most conservatives would probably say was the greatest ever, Abraham Lincoln, recognized this to a certain degree judging by some of his actions when he was president.

Post: #135

(06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

I don't forget that humans are animals, and colonialism can be looked at through a frame of territorial dominance as can many interactions in the animal kingdom.

It might be hypocritical and immoral, but rationally it makes complete sense for one group which has conquered a land (which could not previously be categorized as a Sovereign territory in the Western sense) to wish to protect that land from foreign influence.

Post: #136

(06-13-2014 08:57 AM)InternationalPlayboy Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 08:46 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 01:44 AM)tpiddy Wrote:  And you know what? Multicultural america is not going to be that horrible. I live in a very multicultural city and there's amazing food to eat and all types of women to hit on.

Whether or not multicultural America is horrible or not likely depends a lot on where you are on the socio-economic ladder.

For your average upper middle class SWPL-type, multi-cultural America means fun new ethnic restaurants, and a chance to experience new cultures right in your own country, while still being able to retreat to the safety of your low-crime, not-so-diverse top-tier school district neighborhood.

For your average blue-collar working class person, multicultural America means depressed wages, increased competition for jobs, strained public schools, and atomized neighborhoods where nobody has anything common other than geography.

Disagree completely. America is the only country where you can have an armenian and a turk live right next to each other and not hate each other. Or a paki and a Indian. The fact we talk about race using "white vs black" shows how diverse this country is.

They are having civil war in Iraq just based off religious sect of the same religion. Millions slaughtered in Africa due to tribal differences.

I'm not a big fan of some aspects of America, but the multi-cultural aspect is one of the big pluses.

I really like this way of thinking. This is the California I grew up with, and it was awesome.

It's just that the precondition for this kind of multi-ethnic harmony is that there is one large majority and many, many small minorities.

There is something called the Herfindahl ethnic fractionalization index, and it correlates strongly with civil conflict and other less desirable outcomes. It so happens the index is maximized with two equally sized ethnic groups. The worst situation is when you have a country split down the middle, 50/50 of one and the other. That is a recipe for civil war.

The best scenario is probably one dominant group and many smaller groups, ie. the US in the 1980s. Clearly, it also makes a difference whether the dominant group is tolerant or not, ie. white-America vs. Arab countries and their Jewish minorities.

Post: #137

(06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfek6ydf3M

Your post is so biased I don't even know where to begin.

First, hard work, economic and personal freedoms are what made this country great. It could be argued that America reached it's pinnacle well after slavery had ended and even then only a small minority of half the states ever owned slaves. There are many countries that had similar policies as early Americans in regards to indigenous people and slaves (not defending those actions), yet never reached near as high as did America.

Second, there is no where near the policy of "closed doors" as you elude to you your post. All we are saying is that we can take a limited number at a time to allow them to integrate.

Third, your comparison of today's poor Latin Americans to early American settlers is not completely accurate. When early Americans arrived there was more or less nothing here, certainly no freebies and giveaways from the taxpayer, they built everything.

I doubt very few Americans are anti-immigration. Many Americans, are however, against mass, unrestricted immigration.

Finally, the U.S. government exists to protect the interests of U.S. citizens and taxpayers. It is not a charity (although it sometimes tries to be one) and has no moral obligation to cater to individuals who do not wish to abide by the rules established by the people it represents.

It may be somewhat cruel and cold-hearted, but is absolutely necessary to preserve what exists.

Post: #138

(06-13-2014 10:13 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 04:19 PM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  6 US job force participation rate is still at 62.8% vs 66% in 2007. However, a lot of this is attributed to more college students, aging baby boomers and social welfare dependency. Not in the lack of jobs. As a matter of fact, the downtrend of the participation rate began in year 2000. This is really not a good predictor in employment rate anymore.

Actually it's all about the lack of jobs. Retiring baby boomers is also a huge myth, the boomers aren't retiring because they cannot afford to.



In reality, there are more old people working today than there were 20 years ago.

They have no money and must work to survive. This keeps the next generation of Americans out of the workforce. And the reason there are no new entry level jobs for Americans is because there are no jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10...rents-held

If it were solely on the jobs, why did the participation rate fall began in year 2000 and only magnified in 2009?

The highlighted portion of your chart is actually aged 16-19, which as I had mentioned are skipping work to go to school.

I really believe a number of it is based on people skipping out of the workforce. However, it isn't as bad as most anti-Obamas make it out to be.

I am not a big Obama fan, but the job numbers under his administration are definitely improving. More so than what his critics are willing to admit.

Post: #139

Money (a.k.a. the economy) is the single most important variable in all of the discussions in this thread. Everything else can be fixed with a good economy, may it be immigration, jobs, social welfare.

If you have the economy, you can go to as many wars as you can, even buy countries and continents. The US can immigrate and annex as many people and as many countries as we want. Like most practical problems, money fixes everything.

If the US economy goes into a FULL collapse, no doubt there will be a civil war or a civil disobedience. Economic marginalization (money/resources) is the main cause of any civil disobedience. That's something very basic we can all agree on.

But what are the chances of that? That's where we all disagree. The US economy will not tank. It will look like Japan's in the next decade. Slow and stagnant growth, but it will not collapse.

Post: #140

(06-14-2014 07:31 AM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:13 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 04:19 PM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  6 US job force participation rate is still at 62.8% vs 66% in 2007. However, a lot of this is attributed to more college students, aging baby boomers and social welfare dependency. Not in the lack of jobs. As a matter of fact, the downtrend of the participation rate began in year 2000. This is really not a good predictor in employment rate anymore.

Actually it's all about the lack of jobs. Retiring baby boomers is also a huge myth, the boomers aren't retiring because they cannot afford to.



In reality, there are more old people working today than there were 20 years ago.

They have no money and must work to survive. This keeps the next generation of Americans out of the workforce. And the reason there are no new entry level jobs for Americans is because there are no jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10...rents-held

If it were solely on the jobs, why did the participation rate fall began in year 2000 and only magnified in 2009?

The highlighted portion of your chart is actually aged 16-19, which as I had mentioned are skipping work to go to school.

I really believe a number of it is based on people skipping out of the workforce. However, it isn't as bad as most anti-Obamas make it out to be.

I am not a big Obama fan, but the job numbers under his administration are definitely improving. More so than what his critics are willing to admit.

The job numbers are improving only because a combination of a period of no growth at all under Obama so companies are starting to slowly hire again along with full time jobs being replaced by a multiple of part time jobs.

The American people are not doing better, and with our out of control national debt, we are in very bad economic shape.

If our economy is where it is now, but Obama had not added to the national debt, I think we would be okay. But that isn't the case. We can't borrow forever, we can't even borrow much longer, and it will get very ugly when we can no longer borrow hundreds of billions a year to just keep the shop open.

Post: #141

(06-10-2014 10:40 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:25 PM)assman Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:21 PM)MidWest Wrote:  Hispanics generally are Catholics and are very against abortion, they generally hold traditional family values and are very against Gay marriage mostly. Those are true traditional values. They relate more to the conservative party than they do with Liberals, but thanks to the negative racist rhetoric that comes from Republicans, that makes Hispanics flee the other way.

Look at the level of socialism in South and Central America.

This is one of the huge problems with immigration - just about everyone coming to America is coming from a more socialist country. A small minority understand the significance of a constitutional republic, but most will just vote to make America like the place they left.

I see this all the time in the South, where people from the Northeast come down and vote to make things just like the liberal dystopia they left.

Cuban Americans coming from Cuba are generally Republicans. Yes! Cuba, a communist country. Think of all the Republican Hispanics in Congress! They are of Cuban descent. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carlos Gutierrez and many others. The notion that because Latin American countries are "socialist" and therefore their immigrants are liberal is a huge understatement. The Cuban community had been a Republican bloc for decades, but with the anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Republicans, Cuban Americans are starting to side with the Democrats now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03...38089.html

Of course, there is no such "anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from Republicans."

Funny how people who assert this can't seem to find any evidence of it. Every country limits immigration and enforces those limits. That is not "ant-immigrant" or "anti-Hispanic." Mexico and other South and Central American countries have immigration limits and enforce them. Are they "anti-Hispanic" and "anti-immigrant"?

Post: #142

(06-14-2014 12:35 PM)Glock Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:40 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:25 PM)assman Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 10:21 PM)MidWest Wrote:  Hispanics generally are Catholics and are very against abortion, they generally hold traditional family values and are very against Gay marriage mostly. Those are true traditional values. They relate more to the conservative party than they do with Liberals, but thanks to the negative racist rhetoric that comes from Republicans, that makes Hispanics flee the other way.

Look at the level of socialism in South and Central America.

This is one of the huge problems with immigration - just about everyone coming to America is coming from a more socialist country. A small minority understand the significance of a constitutional republic, but most will just vote to make America like the place they left.

I see this all the time in the South, where people from the Northeast come down and vote to make things just like the liberal dystopia they left.

Cuban Americans coming from Cuba are generally Republicans. Yes! Cuba, a communist country. Think of all the Republican Hispanics in Congress! They are of Cuban descent. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carlos Gutierrez and many others. The notion that because Latin American countries are "socialist" and therefore their immigrants are liberal is a huge understatement. The Cuban community had been a Republican bloc for decades, but with the anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Republicans, Cuban Americans are starting to side with the Democrats now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03...38089.html

Of course, there is no such "anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from Republicans."

Funny how people who assert this can't seem to find any evidence of it. Every country limits immigration and enforces those limits. That is not "ant-immigrant" or "anti-Hispanic." Mexico and other South and Central American countries have immigration limits and enforce them. Are they "anti-Hispanic" and "anti-immigrant"?

Exactly, and if this country gets flooded with low wage/low skill workers, like the Democrats seem to want, who will that hurt the most....

The Hispanic and African American citizens.

Post: #143

(06-14-2014 07:31 AM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  If it were solely on the jobs, why did the participation rate fall began in year 2000 and only magnified in 2009?

Because the decline has been ongoing for a long time.

Quote:The highlighted portion of your chart is actually aged 16-19, which as I had mentioned are skipping work to go to school.

LFPR also counts part-time jobs. Those teenagers would most likely work a part-time job if there were any. But there are no jobs.

Quote:I really believe a number of it is based on people skipping out of the workforce. However, it isn't as bad as most anti-Obamas make it out to be.

No, it's extremely bad and you're in denial.

Quote:I am not a big Obama fan, but the job numbers under his administration are definitely improving. More so than what his critics are willing to admit.

They haven't improved at all. Lots of full-time jobs were lost and replaced with shit part-time jobs. Furthermore tons of old people lost their savings with the housing bubble and so they have to keep working past their retirement age.

Meanwhile, despite having a huge surplus of labor, Obama continues to let illegals into the country by the hundreds of thousands.

And instead of letting the economy heal from the housing bubble, he directly encouraged and financed more huge bubbles via the Federal Reserve and his ridiculous stimulus programs.

Right now the American economy is in yet another bubble and when it pops, all of the "jobs gained" over the last 6 years will vanish.

Post: #144

You have to choose. Either open immigration or welfare state. You can't have both.

Post: #145

(06-14-2014 01:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:31 AM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  If it were solely on the jobs, why did the participation rate fall began in year 2000 and only magnified in 2009?

Because the decline has been ongoing for a long time.

Quote:The highlighted portion of your chart is actually aged 16-19, which as I had mentioned are skipping work to go to school.

LFPR also counts part-time jobs. Those teenagers would most likely work a part-time job if there were any. But there are no jobs.

Quote:I really believe a number of it is based on people skipping out of the workforce. However, it isn't as bad as most anti-Obamas make it out to be.

No, it's extremely bad and you're in denial.

Quote:I am not a big Obama fan, but the job numbers under his administration are definitely improving. More so than what his critics are willing to admit.

They haven't improved at all. Lots of full-time jobs were lost and replaced with shit part-time jobs. Furthermore tons of old people lost their savings with the housing bubble and so they have to keep working past their retirement age.

Meanwhile, despite having a huge surplus of labor, Obama continues to let illegals into the country by the hundreds of thousands.

And instead of letting the economy heal from the housing bubble, he directly encouraged and financed more huge bubbles via the Federal Reserve and his ridiculous stimulus programs.

Right now the American economy is in yet another bubble and when it pops, all of the "jobs gained" over the last 6 years will vanish.

Post: #146

(06-14-2014 01:05 PM)Lumbajac Wrote:  You have to choose. Either open immigration or welfare state. You can't have both.

I'll take limited high-end, educated/wealthy, English-speaking legal immigration and no illegal immigration along with no welfare state for $1,000, Alex.

Post: #147

(06-14-2014 06:55 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  Your post is so biased I don't even know where to begin.

First, hard work, economic and personal freedoms are what made this country great. It could be argued that America reached it's pinnacle well after slavery had ended and even then only a small minority of half the states ever owned slaves. There are many countries that had similar policies as early Americans in regards to indigenous people and slaves (not defending those actions), yet never reached near as high as did America.

If you don't know where to begin, a suggestion is to begin by reading my post again: I said the only reason White America prospered *in the first place* was that they took the land from the Indians, either directly or indirectly. Of course hard work and freedoms were necessary like you say but all of that wouldn't have mattered if they didn't have any land to build the country on in the first place.

(06-14-2014 06:55 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  Second, there is no where near the policy of "closed doors" as you elude to you your post. All we are saying is that we can take a limited number at a time to allow them to integrate.

No, that's what *you* are saying. However others think differently and want to severely limit or even outright ban immigration completely (even possibly but not necessarily people on this thread).

I understand that the current official US policy is not one of closed doors and it's incorrect to claim I eluded it is in my post.

I also understand that there are practical problems associated with free immigration if you consider the interests of US citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical considering how the US government in the past paid no such consideration to the Natives when deciding the immigration quotas.

In any case, if the US had stayed true to its founding principle of small government, it wouldn't have much of a Welfare State and immigration would be closer to a non-issue. Instead I suspect Americans now face a higher tax rate than what the English forced upon them and which was one of the reasons for their quest for independence.

(06-14-2014 06:55 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  Third, your comparison of today's poor Latin Americans to early American settlers is not completely accurate. When early Americans arrived there was more or less nothing here, certainly no freebies and giveaways from the taxpayer, they built everything.

This is very convenient for anti-immigration conservatives. However it still doesn't change my point that being opposed to immigration as a White American is dishonorable and hypocritical: in the past the "freebies" (of sorts) was the land that lured the Europeans to emigrate. US government didn't care that the land had been largely stolen or taken when the Natives had died for various reasons directly related to the colonization, so I don't see why they should care that the welfare checks are stolen from the taxpayers also. (Well actually, I do see why they care - they wouldn't get reelected if they didn't - but I think I've made my point).

What I suspect you may be getting at though, is that *extreme* liberals with their bloated and excessive government is actually a much worse enemy to immigrants than conservatives. (Since high levels of immigration and an excessive Welfare State are mutually exclusive). That is correct IMO.

(06-14-2014 06:55 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  I doubt very few Americans are anti-immigration. Many Americans, are however, against mass, unrestricted immigration.

Finally, the U.S. government exists to protect the interests of U.S. citizens and taxpayers. It is not a charity (although it sometimes tries to be one) and has no moral obligation to cater to individuals who do not wish to abide by the rules established by the people it represents.

It may be somewhat cruel and cold-hearted, but is absolutely necessary to preserve what exists.

I would be happy to see the end of the US in its current form. It has waged wars on poor countries for decades and is now one of the leading feminist countries in the West. The U.S. government exists to protect the interests of U.S. citizens and taxpayers only in theory - in practice they fuck over everyone else but themselves, like most other governments. So I don't think its necessary to preserve what exists.

Post: #148

(06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

There have been thousands of societies with slave labor - how come they did not turn out as prosperous as America?

If slavery produces so much wealth, why was the North 3x richer than the South at the start of the civil war?

Also - the Indians themselves were constantly killing each other over territorial control long before the Whites came. They lost in fair combat just as they had taken the land from other Indians.

Quote:Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Latin America was also another country built on slavery - how come they didn't turn out as rich as America?

Why can't Latin Americans fix their own problems instead of trying to take what others have built?

Quote:Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

In fact, the United States came about through hard work and dedication. All the lies you've been taught in school about the "evil White man" are just that - total fabrications with no basis in reality.

Post: #149

(06-14-2014 05:10 AM)draguer Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

I don't forget that humans are animals, and colonialism can be looked at through a frame of territorial dominance as can many interactions in the animal kingdom.

It might be hypocritical and immoral, but rationally it makes complete sense for one group which has conquered a land (which could not previously be categorized as a Sovereign territory in the Western sense) to wish to protect that land from foreign influence.

I agree with most of your post. It was written from a biological perspective while mine was from a moral and legal perspective of sorts.

Post: #150

(06-14-2014 04:42 PM)solo Wrote:  I also understand that there are practical problems associated with free immigration if you consider the interests of US citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical considering how the US government in the past paid no such consideration to the Natives when deciding the immigration quotas.

In any case, if the US had stayed true to its founding principle of small government, it wouldn't have much of a Welfare State and immigration would be closer to a non-issue. Instead I suspect Americans now face a higher tax rate than what the English forced upon them and which was one of the reasons for their quest for independence.

Claiming that it's dishonorable to nationally emplace practices that will sustain the country is pretty baseless. You second best supporting argument is using the past which can't be changed regardless so it's a non-issue.

This particularly stands out; "But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical..."

You reasoning is absolutely parallel to saying any capable country should accept refugees and immigrants regardless of number or costs because they simply could benefit from it. Should we amass C-130's to haul in Iraq, Syria, Haiti, Egypt, Central African Republic and Sudan because our economic and civil situation is better?