Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

U.S. billionaires
- built and/or invented something
- all over the political spectrum
- not tied to organized crime
- constantly targeted by our government - FTC, IRS, NLRB, EEOC, EPA, SEC, DOL, FCPA, NHTSA
- not involved in military matters

---

Go read volume I and II of "One Nation Under Blackmail" and you'll see just how inaccurate these assertions are, and have been for maybe 75-100 years (getting increasingly worse over time). As far as all over the political spectrum, with maybe a handful of exceptions they are all partisan democrats.

---

Please provide specific examples on why these are wrong.

Off the top of my head, I can name numerous multi-billionaires who are GOP or bipartisan: Musk, Koch, Anschutz, Tull, Rowling, Braman, Wynn, Loeb, Schwab, Schwarzman, Ryan, Lauder, Hunt, Hildebrand, Leone, Ricketts, Perot, Fertitta, Zell, Mellon, Singer, Teyes, Marcus, W Johnson, C Johnson, Warren, Mercer, Adelson, Simon, Walton, Thiel, Uihlein, Hendricks, Langone, Griffin, Drunkenmiller, Friess, Ross. These cover every industry: oil and gas, tech, real estate, Wall Street/other finance/investment, manufacturing, diversified industries, entertainment, hotels.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

---

mother of all false dilemmas.

Mexico has never paraded its army down the streets of Washington D.C.
Russia, on the other hand, has indeed paraded armies thru the streets of Paris.

My God you are truly ignorant of history.

---

Uh the last time Russian troops were in Paris it was part of a large coalition of allies and the enemy was Napoleon (who had previously invaded Russia and taken Moscow)


You realize that right Mr Historian?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sixth_Coalition

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

.

---

The analogy is that demographically Mexico has a brighter future than Russia (that's an undeniable fact)

Mexico is also smart enough to not spend vast amounts of its limited GDP trying to keep up with the West in military spending….

---

Sadly, Russia is doing the opposite.
(you walked right into that one....)

---

Come on now…I didn't walk into anything.

I have admitted from the beginning that Putin's policies are very bad for his country.

Spending far more than they should be on military matters….they can't afford it

Becoming dependent on China…a bad long term plan to say the least

Corruption/kleptocracy systemic though the country…terrible for nation and a killer for growth/development


Admiting these obvious truths is a lot different than "Russia is a threat to NATO! Their troops could be parading in Paris if we don't stop them now!"

The funniest moment in cable history was when Harris Faulkner told Condoleezza Rice that any unjustified invasion of a sovereign country is a war crime, and Rice earnestly nodded (they were speaking about Russia).

But CNN lamenting the evils of coups with John Bolton is second. https://t.co/BbsyAwqaJA

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 2, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

An incomplete list of western oligarchs:

Bill Gates, Larry Fink, Laurene Powell Jobs, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bob Iger...

---

there's always been a list of profoundly wealthy and powerful people.
Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, Astor, etc....

What has changed, though, is that the older classes of oligarchs mostly had to do some industry building to get their wealth...

---

They also tended to be pretty patriotic and civic minded.

Carnegie helped build a high quality university in Pittsburgh (Carnegie-Mellon) and founded a lot of libraries in small to middle size towns all over America.

[the 1880s he'd built an empire in steel and then gave it all away: $60 million to fund a system of 1,689 public libraries across the country]

While Bezos is building a $500 million dollar mega yacht, partying with his skanky girlfriend in Miami, and funding the failing Washington Post and its far left cultural agenda.

I don't even know what Zuckerberg is doing other than building a massive semi-secret compound in Hawaii that makes you think he is planning for societal break down and plans on bugging out with his family and hangers on.

We just don't have the oligarchs we used to….

---

That is a great point. Carnagie was just one. They believed in excess, but also contributing to the nation.

Bezos is on so many steroids and hormones he is being guided by Alpha male complex.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

An incomplete list of western oligarchs:

Bill Gates, Larry Fink, Laurene Powell Jobs, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bob Iger...

---

there's always been a list of profoundly wealthy and powerful people.
Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, Astor, etc....

What has changed, though, is that the older classes of oligarchs mostly had to do some industry building to get their wealth...

---

They also tended to be pretty patriotic and civic minded.

Carnegie helped build a high quality university in Pittsburgh (Carnegie-Mellon) and founded a lot of libraries in small to middle size towns all over America.

[the 1880s he'd built an empire in steel and then gave it all away: $60 million to fund a system of 1,689 public libraries across the country]

While Bezos is building a $500 million dollar mega yacht, partying with his skanky girlfriend in Miami, and funding the failing Washington Post and its far left cultural agenda.

I don't even know what Zuckerberg is doing other than building a massive semi-secret compound in Hawaii that makes you think he is planning for societal break down and plans on bugging out with his family and hangers on.

We just don't have the oligarchs we used to….

---

Not a Bezos or Zuckerberg fan but they have given away tens of billions $, as have other maligned (often deservedly) folks - Gates, Soros, Buffet, and others.

I'm a huge Carnegie fan and have read two of his biogs, but fair to point out he was a ruthless businessman.

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).

ATL Bear said:

---

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).

---

That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).

---

That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.

---

When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).

---

That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.

---

Good grief…

BREAKING: Ukraine will reportedly sign security agreements with France and Germany in the coming weeks

— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) February 3, 2024

This article showcases the progress of Ukraine's security agreements with G7 countries. Closer security ties with Europe as US assistance stalls https://t.co/GED6b6Oqnr

— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) February 4, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.

---

Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine are all examples of places that are worse off as a result of our meddling.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

---

mother of all false dilemmas.

Mexico has never paraded its army down the streets of Washington D.C.
Russia, on the other hand, has indeed paraded armies thru the streets of Paris.

My God you are truly ignorant of history.

---

Uh the last time Russian troops were in Paris it was part of a large coalition of allies and the enemy was Napoleon (who had previously invaded Russia and taken Moscow)


You realize that right Mr Historian?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sixth_Coalition

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

.

---

The analogy is that demographically Mexico has a brighter future than Russia (that's an undeniable fact)

Mexico is also smart enough to not spend vast amounts of its limited GDP trying to keep up with the West in military spending….

---

Sadly, Russia is doing the opposite.
(you walked right into that one....)

---

Come on now…I didn't walk into anything.

I have admitted from the beginning that Putin's policies are very bad for his country.

Spending far more than they should be on military matters….they can't afford it

Becoming dependent on China…a bad long term plan to say the least

Corruption/kleptocracy systemic though the country…terrible for nation and a killer for growth/development


Admiting these obvious truths is a lot different than "Russia is a threat to NATO! Their troops could be parading in Paris if we don't stop them now!"

---

LOL you walk right up to the trough and then sull like an old Jersey cow. LOL.

Putin's bad policies, pursuing military agendas he cannot really afford, misjudging opponents large and small....is EXACTLY what starts wars. Bad judgement starts wars. Over and over and over, history lays bare the mistakes made, the "really...what the hell were they thinking..." aspects of decisions leading up to WWI and WWII and so many others large & small. There are "reach exceeding grasp" issues. There are "not only is that not in your interest, it's actually harmful to your interests..." issues of elementary misjudgment. There are ideological forces driving perceptions and shaping priorities, etc......

Putin is a threat to NATO because he is highly likely to push a bad hand too far, take an action calculating lack of will of his opponents, or just act out of desperation. That he would lose is not really the most important factor in Nato decisionmaking. The key point is that it would take decades and trillions to repair the damage in a war won against Russia. So one must spend in excess to achieve deterrence. And, today, the most important opportunity to build deterrence is to show that Nato can effortlessly ensure Russia's defeat by just supporting poor ol' Ukraine, who will win if we keep the ammo pipeline open.

There is not one inch up upside in allowing Putin to establish the current situation as the future status quo. Because he will NOT stop there. He's already stating it.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

---

mother of all false dilemmas.

Mexico has never paraded its army down the streets of Washington D.C.
Russia, on the other hand, has indeed paraded armies thru the streets of Paris.

My God you are truly ignorant of history.

---

Uh the last time Russian troops were in Paris it was part of a large coalition of allies and the enemy was Napoleon (who had previously invaded Russia and taken Moscow)


You realize that right Mr Historian?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sixth_Coalition

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

.

---

The analogy is that demographically Mexico has a brighter future than Russia (that's an undeniable fact)

Mexico is also smart enough to not spend vast amounts of its limited GDP trying to keep up with the West in military spending….

---

Sadly, Russia is doing the opposite.
(you walked right into that one....)

---

Come on now…I didn't walk into anything.

I have admitted from the beginning that Putin's policies are very bad for his country.

Spending far more than they should be on military matters….they can't afford it

Becoming dependent on China…a bad long term plan to say the least

Corruption/kleptocracy systemic though the country…terrible for nation and a killer for growth/development


Admiting these obvious truths is a lot different than "Russia is a threat to NATO! Their troops could be parading in Paris if we don't stop them now!"

---

LOL you walk right up to the trough and then sull like an old Jersey cow. LOL.

Putin's bad policies, pursuing military agendas he cannot really afford, misjudging opponents large and small....is EXACTLY what starts wars. Bad judgement starts wars.

---

No doubt bad judgement helps start stupid wars.

And the West has show some incredibly bad judgment over the last decade in Ukraine. (Last 25 years in the Middle East)

If you try to move your military alliance right on the borders of another country while you also help over throw previous friendly governments around them then there will be a negative response.

That being said none of it negates the truth that Mexico actually has a far better demographic outlook than Russia has….the initial statement you took objection to

Mexico will continue to have a much younger work force and population growth out until at least 2050….russia is already in decline

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

---

mother of all false dilemmas.

Mexico has never paraded its army down the streets of Washington D.C.
Russia, on the other hand, has indeed paraded armies thru the streets of Paris.

My God you are truly ignorant of history.

---

Uh the last time Russian troops were in Paris it was part of a large coalition of allies and the enemy was Napoleon (who had previously invaded Russia and taken Moscow)


You realize that right Mr Historian?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sixth_Coalition

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

.

---

The analogy is that demographically Mexico has a brighter future than Russia (that's an undeniable fact)

Mexico is also smart enough to not spend vast amounts of its limited GDP trying to keep up with the West in military spending….

---

Sadly, Russia is doing the opposite.
(you walked right into that one....)

---

Come on now…I didn't walk into anything.

I have admitted from the beginning that Putin's policies are very bad for his country.

Spending far more than they should be on military matters….they can't afford it

Becoming dependent on China…a bad long term plan to say the least

Corruption/kleptocracy systemic though the country…terrible for nation and a killer for growth/development


Admiting these obvious truths is a lot different than "Russia is a threat to NATO! Their troops could be parading in Paris if we don't stop them now!"

---

LOL you walk right up to the trough and then sull like an old Jersey cow. LOL.

Putin's bad policies, pursuing military agendas he cannot really afford, misjudging opponents large and small....is EXACTLY what starts wars. Bad judgement starts wars. Over and over and over, history lays bare the mistakes made, the "really...what the hell were they thinking..." aspects of decisions leading up to WWI and WWII and so many others large & small. There are "reach exceeding grasp" issues. There are "not only is that not in your interest, it's actually harmful to your interests..." issues of elementary misjudgment. There are ideological forces driving perceptions and shaping priorities, etc......

Putin is a threat to NATO because he is highly likely to push a bad hand too far, take an action calculating lack of will of his opponents, or just act out of desperation. That he would lose is not really the most important factor in Nato decisionmaking. The key point is that it would take decades and trillions to repair the damage in a war won against Russia. So one must spend in excess to achieve deterrence. And, today, the most important opportunity to build deterrence is to show that Nato can effortlessly ensure Russia's defeat by just supporting poor ol' Ukraine, who will win if we keep the ammo pipeline open.

There is not one inch up upside in allowing Putin to establish the current situation as the future status quo. Because he will NOT stop there. He's already stating it.

---

That's some next-level projection right there. You couldn't describe American leadership any better if you tried.

Meanwhile Putin's conduct of the war has been cautious almost to a fault.

---

LOL no.

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

When you repeatedly use that kind of language, and the Snow N-Words you used in another post, it kind of removes all doubt.

I'm not bragging about those things at all. Using them as an example of how I live my every day life even though I am an ardent supporter of enforcing border regulations (which we are not) and expanding our border presence.

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life. The majority of those do assimilate to our culture to varying extents as well.

What is confounding is the continuous attempts to extrapolate the heinous things a few people do and cast that lot on the whole.

Yes there are bad folks coming across the border. No I don't want all the folks coming here illegally to come here illegally. Yes I want the federal and state governments to enforce our border. No I don't believe everyone coming here is bad.

But asking everyone to assimilate to YOUR culture is a hilarious Faustian bargain. Why would you want folks to come here and immediately hate other people just because of where they came from?

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can rescue from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn a blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

I think you will see that the Spanish, Dutch, French, Mexican, Russians and others were here too. It was not just some blank island that the Brits settled.

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

When you repeatedly use that kind of language, and the Snow N-Words you used in another post, it kind of removes all doubt.

---

I believe that word was used once, and not by him. Evidently you missed the irony.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

When you repeatedly use that kind of language, and the Snow N-Words you used in another post, it kind of removes all doubt.

---

I believe that word was used once, and not by him. Evidently you missed the irony.

---

That's right! It was you!

Sorry BarBearian for accusing you of using the second example. That was Sam.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

When you repeatedly use that kind of language, and the Snow N-Words you used in another post, it kind of removes all doubt.

---

I believe that word was used once, and not by him. Evidently you missed the irony.

---

That's right! It was you!

Sorry BarBearian for accusing you of using the second example. That was Sam.

---

That's ok.

I am accustomed to my fan club viewing me as the Great Satan bcs I'm an Anglo with a little dignity.

The_barBEARian said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

When you repeatedly use that kind of language, and the Snow N-Words you used in another post, it kind of removes all doubt.

---

I believe that word was used once, and not by him. Evidently you missed the irony.

---

That's right! It was you!

Sorry BarBearian for accusing you of using the second example. That was Sam.

---

That's ok.

I am accustomed to my fan club viewing me as the Great Satan bcs I'm an Anglo with a little dignity.

---

Just stick to calling the Russians "orcs" and you'll be fine.

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

I think you will see that the Spanish, Dutch, French, Mexican, Russians and others were here too. It was not just some blank island that the Brits settled.

---

Certainly there were other groups here but they were driven out, bought out (Russians in Alaska, French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida), or conquered (Dutch in New Amsterdam, French in Quebec)

There were not the majority nor major part of determining the future of North America above the Rio Grande

And they all had to deal with an aggressive, expansionist, and militaristic Anglo-Celt population coming from the British isles

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

I think you will see that the Spanish, Dutch, French, Mexican, Russians and others were here too. It was not just some blank island that the Brits settled.

---

Certainly there were other groups here but they were driven out, bought out (Russians in Alaska, French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida), or conquered (Dutch in New Amsterdam, French in Quebec)

There were not the majority nor major part of determining the future of North America above the Rio Grande

And they all had to deal with an aggressive, expansionist, and militaristic Anglo-Celt population coming from the British isles

---

That's all well and good, but they came from somewhere else. To say that English are the original Americans and that immigration from other places is a new concept is not accurate. Everyone on that lise left somewhere else to settle here.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

I think you will see that the Spanish, Dutch, French, Mexican, Russians and others were here too. It was not just some blank island that the Brits settled.

---

Certainly there were other groups here but they were driven out, bought out (Russians in Alaska, French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida), or conquered (Dutch in New Amsterdam, French in Quebec)

There were not the majority nor major part of determining the future of North America above the Rio Grande

And they all had to deal with an aggressive, expansionist, and militaristic Anglo-Celt population coming from the British isles

---

That's all well and good, but they came from somewhere else. To say that English are the original Americans and that immigration from other places is a new concept is not accurate. Everyone on that lise left somewhere else to settle here.

---

It is worth pointing put that those Anglo-celts moved from one part of the British empire to another part of the British empire.

And that their experience of settlement and war of independence created within them a sense of being a new unique nationality.

Even today after the great waves of immigrants that came after the civil war and after the immigration act of 1965…..those areas where old stock Anglo-Americas live and are a majority are the most likely to just mark "American" on the census

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

I think you will see that the Spanish, Dutch, French, Mexican, Russians and others were here too. It was not just some blank island that the Brits settled.

---

Certainly there were other groups here but they were driven out, bought out (Russians in Alaska, French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida), or conquered (Dutch in New Amsterdam, French in Quebec)

There were not the majority nor major part of determining the future of North America above the Rio Grande

And they all had to deal with an aggressive, expansionist, and militaristic Anglo-Celt population coming from the British isles

---

That's all well and good, but they came from somewhere else. To say that English are the original Americans and that immigration from other places is a new concept is not accurate. Everyone on that lise left somewhere else to settle here.

---

It is worth pointing put that those Anglo-celts moved from one part of the British empire to another part of the British empire.

And that their experience of settlement and war of independence created within them a sense of being a new unique nationality.

Even today after the great waves of immigrants that came after the civil war and after the immigration act of 1965…..those areas where old stock Anglo-Americas live and are a majority are the most likely to just mark "American" on the census

---

Ok, we are not a Nation of immigrants, we are English and you are from Original settler stock. A real WASP. Close the border and throw out anyone that's family arrived after 1812...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

---

I don't bemoan the people wanting to come here. The vast, vast majority of them are merely looking to better their life….

---

Certainly true.

Also true that the United States does NOT exist to provide a better life for people from the 3rd world.

It exists to provide security and freedom for the American people and the States that make up the Union.

That I think is a major departing point between actual conservatives and liberals in terms of views around immigration.

There are certainly progressives who think the legitimacy of the USA is tied to how many 3rd worlders we can reduce from the poverty, corruption, and violence of their own homelands

(Then there are the chamber of commerce 1st republicans who don't care one way or the other but love that cheap labor)

---

The US does more than its share of immigration and is the #1 in the world. We have over 1 million of legal immigrants per year. Germany is the 2nd. So, we can close the border and still be the top at allowing new citizens to legally immigrate.

---

Yea another part of the hypocrisy of the immigration debate.

We already let in 1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Basically resettling a population the size of Dallas every single year.

But now we are also supposed to accept 200,000 people a month breaking our laws?


If Congress wants more legal immigrants than they should pass a law to that effect. Not just let the President turn and blind eye to an actual invasion on our border

---

Hear, Hear. I have no issue with immigration, my Grandfather came through Ellis Island from Hungary. We are a Nation of Immigrants. But, enforce the laws and immigrants should obey the laws.

---

No. We are a nation of British colonialists who rebelled against the crown.

My ancestors rebelled against the British to create this country. This country had a distinct culture and society.

You might not like the people who founded this country, but it didnt appear out of thin air.

A bunch of you folks got here 100 years ago and suddenly we are a "nation of immigrants" which is so ungracious and disrespectful to those who came before you.

---

I think you will see that the Spanish, Dutch, French, Mexican, Russians and others were here too. It was not just some blank island that the Brits settled.

---

Certainly there were other groups here but they were driven out, bought out (Russians in Alaska, French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida), or conquered (Dutch in New Amsterdam, French in Quebec)

There were not the majority nor major part of determining the future of North America above the Rio Grande

And they all had to deal with an aggressive, expansionist, and militaristic Anglo-Celt population coming from the British isles

---

That's all well and good, but they came from somewhere else. To say that English are the original Americans and that immigration from other places is a new concept is not accurate. Everyone on that lise left somewhere else to settle here.

---

It is worth pointing put that those Anglo-celts moved from one part of the British empire to another part of the British empire.

And that their experience of settlement and war of independence created within them a sense of being a new unique nationality.

Even today after the great waves of immigrants that came after the civil war and after the immigration act of 1965…..those areas where old stock Anglo-Americas live and are a majority are the most likely to just mark "American" on the census

---

Ok, we are not a Nation of immigrants, we are English….

---

Well we are a very diverse Union of States now.

Just interesting to point out that the USA went through two large immigration waves (1870-1924 and 1970-present)

And the 1st wave was European (Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, etc)

And much of that 1st wave was concentrated in the farm belt of the Midwest and the large industrial northern cities/regions









Another interesting story that has been forgotten is how many Germans we had come to the USA…a mass migration tale basically forgotten

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).

---

That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.

---

When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.

---

We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.

---

Afghanistan and Iraq are both better off than prior to our invasions. Probably not in the form the U.S. nation builders would have projected, but the statistics do show. Ironically, even the Taliban are evolving.