McDonald's serves up verbal abuse to Deputy!

[Right of Neocon]

I got a solution.

Lets give it back. Yep. Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Cali. Give it back to the ******* Mexicans. Not in theory, literally sign it over to the Mexican government, and all non-Hispanic people leave that area since it will then turn into Mexican national territory.

THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now.

We'll then know the answer to "Why do people not like illegal immigration?"

I say we disregard human rights in other Countries, invade Mexico and kill all who get in the way and impose mexican border laws for the southern Countries. Make mexicans Americans and make a shoot on sight law regarding border hoppers.

Good to se there are still god fearing Americans who support genocide

God fearing? Who's that? Last I checked I'm my own "god"...

 

[Right of Neocon]

I got a solution.

Lets give it back. Yep. Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Cali. Give it back to the ******* Mexicans. Not in theory, literally sign it over to the Mexican government, and all non-Hispanic people leave that area since it will then turn into Mexican national territory.

THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now.

We'll then know the answer to "Why do people not like illegal immigration?"

I say we disregard human rights in other Countries, invade Mexico and kill all who get in the way and impose mexican border laws for the southern Countries. Make mexicans Americans and make a shoot on sight law regarding border hoppers.

Good to se there are still god fearing Americans who support genocide

Forgot about Hillary Clinton's Idol, Mao Se Tung, and I think she a religious pawn. So I guess she is a God Fearing genocidal American...

 

[rightwinger]

I say we disregard human rights in other Countries, invade Mexico and kill all who get in the way and impose mexican border laws for the southern Countries. Make mexicans Americans and make a shoot on sight law regarding border hoppers.

Good to se there are still god fearing Americans who support genocide

Forgot about Hillary Clinton's Idol, Mao Se Tung, and I think she a religious pawn. So I guess she is a God Fearing genocidal American...

Mao?

In thought Hillary worshiped Hitler. You better check with Rush

 

[gekaap]

The idea of a Germanic people without sufficient space dates back to long before Adolf Hitler brought it to prominence. Through the Middle Ages, German population pressures led to settlement in Eastern Europe, a practice termed Ostsiedlung. The term Lebensraum in this sense was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in 1901, and was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, based on the English and French models, and the westward expansion of the United States. Ratzel believed that the development of a people was primarily influenced by their geographical situation and that a people that successfully adapted to one location would proceed naturally to another. These thoughts can be seen in his studies of zoology and the study of adaptation. This expansion to fill available space, he claimed, was a natural and necessary feature of any healthy species.

..... Thus the concept of lebensraum was picked up and expanded by publicists of the day, including Karl Haushofer and General Friedrich von Bernhardi. In von Bernhardi's 1912 book Germany and the Next War, he expanded upon Ratzel's hypotheses and, for the first time, explicitly identified Eastern Europe as a source of new space. According to him, war, with the express purpose of achieving Lebensraum, was a distinct "biological necessity." As he explained with regard to the Latin and Slavic races, "Without war, inferior or decaying races would easily choke the growth of healthy budding elements."

"THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now."

"Manifest destiny" has always been a compelling argument - but only if you happen to be the one doing the "manifesting!"

In the case "Lebensraum," instead of targeting "******* Mexicans/Hispanics" as the "inferior or decaying race(s) (that) would easily choke the growth of healthy budding elements (Arya," Nazi Germany identified the "******* Latins" and the "******* Slavs"

THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now.

I don't know what you're trying to say here because you seem to be contradicting yourself. (I'm delaying invoking Godwin's law because I'm really confused by what you're saying.) If you're trying to compare US attitudes toward illegal immigration to Nazi Greater Germany unification goals, then your comparison misses the mark completely. Americans adverse to illegal immigration are not expanding into Mexico. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be an appropriate comparison; Mexico is de facto expanding into the US via illegal immigration. The United States is right to resist such things.

If you're trying to allege that the US was somehow wrong in its conquest of Arizona and New Mexico, then you would be hard pressed to support that. The region was conquered in war, a war that Mexico started by launching an attack against American soldiers on American soil. Mexico instigated the war by attempting to retain claim to the sovereign nation of Texas, which had seceded from Mexico and maintained independence for several years (albeit, their overall success of internal management seems to have left much to be desired). When Texas joined the Union, the US made reasonable attempts to come to a diplomatic resolution to the conflicting positions of each side, including generous offers to forgive Mexican debts and to purchase Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico. However, Mexico refused these attempts and eventually initiated hostilities.

 

[jgarden]

I got a solution.

Lets give it back. Yep. Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Cali. Give it back to the ******* Mexicans. Not in theory, literally sign it over to the Mexican government, and all non-Hispanic people leave that area since it will then turn into Mexican national territory.

THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now.

We'll then know the answer to "Why do people not like illegal immigration?"

I say we disregard human rights in other Countries, invade Mexico and kill all who get in the way and impose mexican border laws for the southern Countries. Make mexicans Americans and make a shoot on sight law regarding border hoppers.

I won't bore "Right of Neocon" with the moral ramifications of his actions BUT if "illegal" immigration negatively impacted the financial status of the top 5%, who control most of the private wealth in American, they wouldn't be here.

It defies reason that the entire population of the State of New York (approximately 15 million) could somehow "sneak" into the nation, without the tacit support of a "chosen few" (and I don't mean the politicians) who actually control what happens/doesn't happen in this country!

 

[gekaap]

It defies reason that the entire population of the State of New York (approximately 15 million) could somehow "sneak" into the nation, without the tacit support of a "chosen few" (and I don't mean the politicians) who actually control what happens/doesn't happen in this country!

Would it be accurate to imagine that you subscribe to alot of "alternative reality" theories, like the birther movement, 9-11 inside job theories, the Illuminati, etc?

And for the record, the highest wealth earners tend to profit from illegal immigration. Corporate execs and the like whose income is usually tied to the financial success of large companies, will benefit from their own company benefiting from cheap illegal labor. The middle class tends to be somewhat hampered by illegal immigration (though usually within manageable range), and the working class tends to be hardest hit by illegal immigration, because those people directly compete with illegals for jobs, and experience the greatest wage suppression and working conditions degradation.

 

[jgarden]

I got a solution.

Lets give it back. Yep. Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Cali. Give it back to the ******* Mexicans. Not in theory, literally sign it over to the Mexican government, and all non-Hispanic people leave that area since it will then turn into Mexican national territory.

THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now.

We'll then know the answer to "Why do people not like illegal immigration?"

Definitions of "Manifest Destiny"

•a policy of imperialism rationalized as inevitable (as if granted by God)

•Manifest Destiny is a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained, to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. ...

•The political doctrine or belief held by the United States of America, particularly during its expansion, that the nation was destined to expand toward the west; The political doctrine or belief held by many liberal citizens of the United States of America that their system is best, and the ...

•Belief of the government of the United States that it was destined to rule the continent from coast to coast; led to annexation of Texas and Mexican-American War.

•Throughout the 1800s, Americans, including recent immigrants from Europe, poured over the Appalachian Mountains and moved West toward the Great Plains. ...

•Belief that it was God's will for the American people to expand their territory and political processes across the North American continent.

•The Manifest Destiny was an emotional upsurge of certain beliefs in the US in the 1840's and 1850's. Citizens of the US believed they should spread their democratic government over the entire North America and possibly extend into South America. ...

•is a philosphy that extols that whatever race is in ascendancy has a moral imperative to enlarge its domain of control, even to the point of subjugating other peoples ...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&r...y&sa=X&ei=PI1QTc6jDIP98AaflpHxDg&ved=0CBkQkAE

The definitions of "Manifest Destiny" note that 19thC Americans, as a society "in ascendancy," had the "moral imperative (Manifest Destiny/God-given right) to enlarge its domain of control (to the Pacific Ocean), even to the point of subjugating other peoples (Indians, Mexicans).

My post was in response to "bucs90's" assertion that even if Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California were given "back to the ******* Mexicans" ("bucs90's" words, not mine) they would be "Worse off" in 20 years than they are now.

Even if that were true, is it my divine right/destiny to "confiscate" my neighbor's property because it would be "Better off" under my control than under his/hers?

If that would not be considered a valid argument within American society, why would it be considered a valid argument between America and neighboring societies?

How ironic that the descendents of the original inhabitants, who were settled in the Americas long before most of our ancestors arrived from Europe and set up political boundaries, are now considered "illegals!"

"Lebensraum" is a German version of "Manifest Destiny," attempting to legitimize the forcing of "Slavs" out of Eastern Europe (Poland, Ukraine), giving Aryans "living space" and makiing better use of the land.

 

[gekaap]

If that would not be considered a valid argument within American society, why would it be considered a valid argument between America and neighboring societies?

No, it would not be accepted. But lamenting about injustices of long ago cannot possibly justify illegal immigration into the US today. There are a great many regions in the world that are now inhabited by people who were not native to the region. It's really beside the point. The US is a sovereign nation and it has the right to establish rules for immigration.

How ironic that the descendents of the original inhabitants, who were in America long before most of our ancestors arrived from Europe, are now considered "illegals!"

Actually, there is no substantial portion of modern Mexican ancestry that is composed of peoples that were native to the regions that compose the present day USA. Modern Mexicans owe their ancestry to the Spanish, and native Americans who populated areas in modern day Mexico. All of that is really aside from the point, anyway. As already noted, the US is a sovereign nation that has the right to establish rules for immigration.

 

[jgarden]

If that would not be considered a valid argument within American society, why would it be considered a valid argument between America and neighboring societies?

No, it would not be accepted. But lamenting about injustices of long ago cannot possibly justify illegal immigration into the US today. There are a great many regions in the world that are now inhabited by people who were not native to the region. It's really beside the point. The US is a sovereign nation and it has the right to establish rules for immigration.

How ironic that the descendents of the original inhabitants, who were in America long before most of our ancestors arrived from Europe, are now considered "illegals!"

Actually, there is no substantial portion of modern Mexican ancestry that is composed of peoples that were native to the regions that compose the present day USA. Modern Mexicans owe their ancestry to the Spanish, and native Americans who populated areas in modern day Mexico. All of that is really aside from the point, anyway. As already noted, the US is a sovereign nation that has the right to establish rules for immigration.

Politically, conservative "hardliners" will be forced to reconsider their position concerning Hispanic issues - before the GOP/Tea Party is relegated to political oblivion.

- by 2042, minorities (Hispanics, blacks, Asians) are projected to become more than half the population

-"white"(European) Americans will no longer constitute the majority in 39 years (reduced from 67% to 47%)

- by 2023, more than half of all children in America will be minorities.

- America's Hispanics/Latinos will increase from 15% (46.7 million) in 2008 to 30% (132.8 million) of the population in 2050

- by 2050, approximately one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic

- Hispanics traditionally support the Democrats (in 2008, 67% of Hispanics/Latinos voted for Obama and 31% voted for McCain)

- although they current represent just 14% of the national population, large Hispanic turnouts than in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia, helped Obama carry former Republican states

- Obama won 57% of the vote in Florida, receiving 70% of non-Cuban Hispanics and even 35% of the traditionally Republican Cuban Americans that have a strong political presence in Florida

- although McCain received 55% of the overall state voted in Texas, 63% of that state's Latino/Obama voters supported Obama

- with Hispanic/Latino voters concentrated in southern, traditionally "red states" and the steady decrease of conservative, white voters as a % of the population, demographics abd voting patterns of the electoral map will shift dramatically (wait till the Democrats nominate a Hispanic presidential candidate)

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-13/...ation-census-bureau-white-population?_s=PM:US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans

 

[BrianH]

If that would not be considered a valid argument within American society, why would it be considered a valid argument between America and neighboring societies?

No, it would not be accepted. But lamenting about injustices of long ago cannot possibly justify illegal immigration into the US today. There are a great many regions in the world that are now inhabited by people who were not native to the region. It's really beside the point. The US is a sovereign nation and it has the right to establish rules for immigration.

How ironic that the descendents of the original inhabitants, who were in America long before most of our ancestors arrived from Europe, are now considered "illegals!"

Actually, there is no substantial portion of modern Mexican ancestry that is composed of peoples that were native to the regions that compose the present day USA. Modern Mexicans owe their ancestry to the Spanish, and native Americans who populated areas in modern day Mexico. All of that is really aside from the point, anyway. As already noted, the US is a sovereign nation that has the right to establish rules for immigration.

The problem with the "might is right" argument is that in just 39 years, the number of American Hispanics will triple and "white"(European) Americans will no longer constitute the majority.

I don't think it's a "might is right" issue...I think it's a stupidity issue on our part.

 

[AmericanFirst]

A look at crime in Mexico shows the respect hispanics have for lawfull society.

If they had any respect they would not come into this country illegally. Heathens.

so we have no respect for Iraq?
I somehow do not think we went thru their immigration procedures over there.

Different, there we invaded to overthrow a brutal dictator. Even your liberal reps and senators approved of that before they started crying. The invasion of our country is done by illegal immigrants and terrorists. Throw them all out of my country. What I mean is the deputy should check the papers of the workers.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I say we disregard human rights in other Countries, invade Mexico and kill all who get in the way and impose mexican border laws for the southern Countries. Make mexicans Americans and make a shoot on sight law regarding border hoppers.

Good to se there are still god fearing Americans who support genocide

God fearing? Who's that? Last I checked I'm my own "god"...

Only God is God, you are not.

 

[gekaap]

Politically, conservative "hardliners" will be forced to reconsider their position concerning Hispanic issues - before the GOP/Tea Party is relegated to political oblivion.

- by 2042, minorities (Hispanics, blacks, Asians) are projected to become more than half the population

-"white"(European) Americans will no longer constitute the majority in 39 years (reduced from 67% to 47%)

- Anerica's Hispanics/Latinos will increase from 14% to 29% of the population by 2050

- Hispanics traditionally support the Democrats (in 2008, 67% of Hispanics/Latinos voted for Obama and 31% voted for McCain)

- although they current represent just 14% of the national population, large Hispanic turnouts than in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia, helped Obama carry former Republican states

- Obama won 57% of the vote in Florida, receiving 70% of non-Cuban Hispanics and even 35% of the traditionally Republican Cuban Americans that have a strong political presence in Florida

- although McCain received 55% of the overall state voted in Texas, 63% of that state's Latino/Obama voters supported Obama

- with Hispanic/Latino voters concentrated in southern, traditionally "red states" and the steady decrease of conservative, white voters as a % of the population, demographics abd voting patterns of the electoral map will shift dramatically (wait till the Democrats nominate a Hispanic presidential candidate)

Minorities expected to be majority in 2050 - CNN

Hispanic and Latino Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good job at completely ignoring what I said, and trying to take the discussion in a completely different direction. Why are you making this about race? It has nothing to do with race. I am Hispanic. And I'm not a conservative "hardliner." I am an undeniable centrist. I can sit here and say that the US has a right to set immigration rules, and I can say that it furthermore has the responsibility to ensure that it establishes and executes immigration laws for the protection its citizens and legal residents. I can say all of this because my race does not factor into the issue, because NOBODY's race factors into the issue. It has nothing to do with race, at all. It has to do with a sovereign country, and protecting the interests of its citizens within its own borders.

 

[jgarden]

Good job at completely ignoring what I said, and trying to take the discussion in a completely different direction. Why are you making this about race? It has nothing to do with race ..... We're dealing with master Satanists here. The fact that there is no evidence proves that it's true.

 

[gekaap]

Well, that sums up the merit of your arguments.

 

[Right of Neocon]

Good to se there are still god fearing Americans who support genocide

Forgot about Hillary Clinton's Idol, Mao Se Tung, and I think she a religious pawn. So I guess she is a God Fearing genocidal American...

Mao?

In thought Hillary worshiped Hitler. You better check with Rush

I could care less what Rush yammers on about, I'm talking about what Hillary, herself has said. "Some of my idol heroes are that of, Mao, Chea," among other psychotic members of the mass murder club. I could care less what a political cheerleader says but what they (Political figures) them selves say. And that was bothersome to me.

It really doesn't matter what I say on a forum, but political figures should really be a little more diligent in their views.

And that is not a stirring the pot statement..

 

[Right of Neocon]

The idea of a Germanic people without sufficient space dates back to long before Adolf Hitler brought it to prominence. Through the Middle Ages, German population pressures led to settlement in Eastern Europe, a practice termed Ostsiedlung. The term Lebensraum in this sense was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in 1901, and was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, based on the English and French models, and the westward expansion of the United States. Ratzel believed that the development of a people was primarily influenced by their geographical situation and that a people that successfully adapted to one location would proceed naturally to another. These thoughts can be seen in his studies of zoology and the study of adaptation. This expansion to fill available space, he claimed, was a natural and necessary feature of any healthy species.

..... Thus the concept of lebensraum was picked up and expanded by publicists of the day, including Karl Haushofer and General Friedrich von Bernhardi. In von Bernhardi's 1912 book Germany and the Next War, he expanded upon Ratzel's hypotheses and, for the first time, explicitly identified Eastern Europe as a source of new space. According to him, war, with the express purpose of achieving Lebensraum, was a distinct "biological necessity." As he explained with regard to the Latin and Slavic races, "Without war, inferior or decaying races would easily choke the growth of healthy budding elements."

"THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now."

"Manifest destiny" has always been a compelling argument - but only if you happen to be the one doing the "manifesting!"

In the case "Lebensraum," instead of targeting "******* Mexicans/Hispanics" as the "inferior or decaying race(s) (that) would easily choke the growth of healthy budding elements (Arya," Nazi Germany identified the "******* Latins" and the "******* Slavs"

THEN...........in 20 years, lets look at that region. And see if it is A) Better, or B) Worse off than it is now.

I don't know what you're trying to say here because you seem to be contradicting yourself. (I'm delaying invoking Godwin's law because I'm really confused by what you're saying.) If you're trying to compare US attitudes toward illegal immigration to Nazi Greater Germany unification goals, then your comparison misses the mark completely. Americans adverse to illegal immigration are not expanding into Mexico. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be an appropriate comparison; Mexico is de facto expanding into the US via illegal immigration. The United States is right to resist such things.

If you're trying to allege that the US was somehow wrong in its conquest of Arizona and New Mexico, then you would be hard pressed to support that. The region was conquered in war, a war that Mexico started by launching an attack against American soldiers on American soil. Mexico instigated the war by attempting to retain claim to the sovereign nation of Texas, which had seceded from Mexico and maintained independence for several years (albeit, their overall success of internal management seems to have left much to be desired). When Texas joined the Union, the US made reasonable attempts to come to a diplomatic resolution to the conflicting positions of each side, including generous offers to forgive Mexican debts and to purchase Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico. However, Mexico refused these attempts and eventually initiated hostilities.

And you actually think any of that sinks into radical minds? Facts and realities are not the talking points of ideologues. Not to mention another talking point being that California was stolen as well.....
Many are too stupid to understand that the Democrat party was the Expansionist and and pro-war group. The same went to the general ideology of the south wanting to keep slavery.

 

[gekaap]

And you actually think any of that sinks into radical minds? Facts and realities are not the talking points of ideologues. Not to mention another talking point being that California was stolen as well.....
Many are too stupid to understand that the Democrat party was the Expansionist and and pro-war group. The same went to the general ideology of the south wanting to keep slavery.

What are you on about? Who said anything about radical minds or anything else you've mentioned? Why are you taking the discussion into irrelevant territory?

 

[Right of Neocon]

And you actually think any of that sinks into radical minds? Facts and realities are not the talking points of ideologues. Not to mention another talking point being that California was stolen as well.....
Many are too stupid to understand that the Democrat party was the Expansionist and and pro-war group. The same went to the general ideology of the south wanting to keep slavery.

What are you on about? Who said anything about radical minds or anything else you've mentioned? Why are you taking the discussion into irrelevant territory?

Because there are people that keep crying about America stole the land from Mexico when it was not the case. It is the same idiots that are calling for Immigrants to keep coming and calling them patriots.

That is radical mindset. Un American rewriting of history.

P.S. It's a forum, opinion postings are how they work. Like it or not I'm posting as I see fit.

 

[rightwinger]

And you actually think any of that sinks into radical minds? Facts and realities are not the talking points of ideologues. Not to mention another talking point being that California was stolen as well.....
Many are too stupid to understand that the Democrat party was the Expansionist and and pro-war group. The same went to the general ideology of the south wanting to keep slavery.

What are you on about? Who said anything about radical minds or anything else you've mentioned? Why are you taking the discussion into irrelevant territory?

Because there are people that keep crying about America stole the land from Mexico when it was not the case. It is the same idiots that are calling for Immigrants to keep coming and calling them patriots.

That is radical mindset. Un American rewriting of history.

P.S. It's a forum, opinion postings are how they work. Like it or not I'm posting as I see fit.

We didn't steal it....we "won" it