True Political Humor
- Thread starter De-marko
- Start date
De-marko
Dedicated LVC Member
lol...uh..yeah you know it.
We stole their land fair and square in line with the theft and murder and the wiping out of the indians that the country was founded on.
What is it about being defeated in the past in a war of theft of land, the kind that human history is made up of, don't they understand?
What is it about being defeated in the past in a war of theft of land, the kind that human history is made up of, don't they understand?
Just quoting for truth.....
If you don't want to say the land was stolen then it was taken by force.
It's just something that most people don't realize or take into consideration when talking about this problem.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
To lessen the ignorance:
The overwhelming majority of indigenous peoples in what is now the United States didn't even have a concept of 'owning' land. Primarily somewhat nomadic people, land was just something to occupy for short periods of time. You can't steal something that isn't owned.
Why don't you find something that's really evil to occupy your time and expend your emotions? I'll suggest you focus on the evil of a black crayon. That'll be about your speed!
KS
The overwhelming majority of indigenous peoples in what is now the United States didn't even have a concept of 'owning' land. Primarily somewhat nomadic people, land was just something to occupy for short periods of time. You can't steal something that isn't owned.
Why don't you find something that's really evil to occupy your time and expend your emotions? I'll suggest you focus on the evil of a black crayon. That'll be about your speed!
KS
We still had to fight and kill some of them for it and take it.
They're not fighting to take it back in the conventional sense.
I'm not getting excited or taking a position, just adding some depth to the story.
I benefit from how history turned out.
65% of americans agree with the arizona law as I mostly do but the other 35% don't and that's still a pretty high number who don't support running out or deporting all these people.
And since we are mortal we also only occupy the land for a short period of time, we don't really own it permanently.
Our concept of mother nature is a little different from their's.
They considered nature a spirit that could not be owned and that extended to the land.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Accurate History
Actually, the natives were fighting for supremacy in the areas they traversed. It wasn't the land, as such, but the encroachment that they didn't like. And considering that some thought it amusing to gouge out eyes, remove testicles, cut off breasts, and disembowel so that they could have a good laugh at the antics resulting from the agony, it took a particularly brave sort of pioneer to go into the western area.
There was enough of the aborigine's attitude extant that the Army was ultimately called out and everything went downhill from there. It's typical of the Liberal attitude that the pioneers are now portrayed as the bad guys.
KS
Actually, the natives were fighting for supremacy in the areas they traversed. It wasn't the land, as such, but the encroachment that they didn't like. And considering that some thought it amusing to gouge out eyes, remove testicles, cut off breasts, and disembowel so that they could have a good laugh at the antics resulting from the agony, it took a particularly brave sort of pioneer to go into the western area.
There was enough of the aborigine's attitude extant that the Army was ultimately called out and everything went downhill from there. It's typical of the Liberal attitude that the pioneers are now portrayed as the bad guys.
KS
Last edited by a moderator:
Arizona Immigration Law Reveals Republican Split On Immigration
Doug Mataconis | Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Arizona immigration law is once again bringing to light an underlying tension on the entire immigration issue among Republicans:
The problems that Republican face on this issue are two-fold.
In states with significant Hispanic populations like Florida, Texas, and California, taking a hard line stand against immigration poses the risk that the GOP will lose support in a fast-growing part of the population. That’s why, for example, you’re unlikely to see anything like the Arizona law being proposed by a California Republican, and why even the conservative Governor of Texas has said that the law is “not right” for his state.
Additionally, the GOP’s ties to the business community, especially small businesses, are likely to make it difficult for the party to fully support enforcement and employment verification measures that increase costs for business. E-verify type programs are not a significant problem for large businesses to implement, for example, but the administrative burden of such programs on small businesses, which is one explanation for the extent to which the Chamber of Commerce departs from orthodox conservativism on the issue of immigration.
In a rational political environment, this issue would be dealt with the way every contentious issue is dealt with, through compromise; perhaps something along these lines. This is hardly a rational environment, however, and any attempt at compromise is likely to be instantly denounced by both extremes. Unless it finds a solution to it’s divide, however, the GOP is likely to find itself left behind.
The Arizona immigration law is once again bringing to light an underlying tension on the entire immigration issue among Republicans:
LOS ANGELES — Republican lawmakers and candidates are increasingly divided over illegal immigration — torn between the need to attract Latino support, especially at the ballot box, and rallying party members who support tougher action.
Arizona’s new measure, which requires that the police check the documents of anyone they stop or detain whom they suspect of being in the country illegally, has forced politicians far and wide to take a stance. But unlike in Washington, where a consensus exists among establishment Republicans, the fault lines in the states — where the issue is even more visceral and immediate — are not predictable.
Conservative Republican governors like Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia and Rick Perry of Texas have criticized the Arizona law. But some more moderate Republicans, like Tom Campbell, who is running in the party’s Senate primary in California, have supported it.
(…)
In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law.
In Florida, for instance, Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for governor, now says he approves of the law, though he called it “far out” two weeks ago; Marco Rubio, the state’s Republican Senate nominee, has also shifted his stance.
State Republicans now find themselves in a balancing act, trying to seize a moment of Congressional stalemate to demonstrate leadership while not repelling voters on either side of the debate, a challenge that is particularly daunting for those in a primary fight.
“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush. “I applaud Arizona for taking action, but I think the rhetoric on all sides ought to be lowered.”
Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status.
That bill, widely derided as “amnesty” by movement conservatives and talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity despite the fact that it wasn’t all that different from the immigration bill signed into law by President Reagan twenty years earlier. It was also the last serious effort on a national level to deal with immigration legislatively, rather than treating it as the political wedge issue that it is today.Arizona’s new measure, which requires that the police check the documents of anyone they stop or detain whom they suspect of being in the country illegally, has forced politicians far and wide to take a stance. But unlike in Washington, where a consensus exists among establishment Republicans, the fault lines in the states — where the issue is even more visceral and immediate — are not predictable.
Conservative Republican governors like Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia and Rick Perry of Texas have criticized the Arizona law. But some more moderate Republicans, like Tom Campbell, who is running in the party’s Senate primary in California, have supported it.
(…)
In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law.
In Florida, for instance, Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for governor, now says he approves of the law, though he called it “far out” two weeks ago; Marco Rubio, the state’s Republican Senate nominee, has also shifted his stance.
State Republicans now find themselves in a balancing act, trying to seize a moment of Congressional stalemate to demonstrate leadership while not repelling voters on either side of the debate, a challenge that is particularly daunting for those in a primary fight.
“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush. “I applaud Arizona for taking action, but I think the rhetoric on all sides ought to be lowered.”
Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status.
The problems that Republican face on this issue are two-fold.
In states with significant Hispanic populations like Florida, Texas, and California, taking a hard line stand against immigration poses the risk that the GOP will lose support in a fast-growing part of the population. That’s why, for example, you’re unlikely to see anything like the Arizona law being proposed by a California Republican, and why even the conservative Governor of Texas has said that the law is “not right” for his state.
Additionally, the GOP’s ties to the business community, especially small businesses, are likely to make it difficult for the party to fully support enforcement and employment verification measures that increase costs for business. E-verify type programs are not a significant problem for large businesses to implement, for example, but the administrative burden of such programs on small businesses, which is one explanation for the extent to which the Chamber of Commerce departs from orthodox conservativism on the issue of immigration.
In a rational political environment, this issue would be dealt with the way every contentious issue is dealt with, through compromise; perhaps something along these lines. This is hardly a rational environment, however, and any attempt at compromise is likely to be instantly denounced by both extremes. Unless it finds a solution to it’s divide, however, the GOP is likely to find itself left behind.
THEMOJOMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
Up in buffalo
I've worked in Fla everywinter for 32 yrs and watched the "NO HABLA INGLES" breed like a bunch of rabbits or mink and take jobs away. What WHITE MAN or even BLACK MAN wants out on a job where you can't even talk to your co-workers and listen to their Spanish Music Blasting much less wonder what they are talking about among themselves laughing and giggling.
Arizona Immigration Law Reveals Republican Split On Immigration
Doug Mataconis | Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Arizona immigration law is once again bringing to light an underlying tension on the entire immigration issue among Republicans:LOS ANGELES — Republican lawmakers and candidates are increasingly divided over illegal immigration — torn between the need to attract Latino support, especially at the ballot box, and rallying party members who support tougher action.That bill, widely derided as “amnesty” by movement conservatives and talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity despite the fact that it wasn’t all that different from the immigration bill signed into law by President Reagan twenty years earlier. It was also the last serious effort on a national level to deal with immigration legislatively, rather than treating it as the political wedge issue that it is today.
Arizona’s new measure, which requires that the police check the documents of anyone they stop or detain whom they suspect of being in the country illegally, has forced politicians far and wide to take a stance. But unlike in Washington, where a consensus exists among establishment Republicans, the fault lines in the states — where the issue is even more visceral and immediate — are not predictable.
Conservative Republican governors like Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia and Rick Perry of Texas have criticized the Arizona law. But some more moderate Republicans, like Tom Campbell, who is running in the party’s Senate primary in California, have supported it.
(…)
In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law.
In Florida, for instance, Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for governor, now says he approves of the law, though he called it “far out” two weeks ago; Marco Rubio, the state’s Republican Senate nominee, has also shifted his stance.
State Republicans now find themselves in a balancing act, trying to seize a moment of Congressional stalemate to demonstrate leadership while not repelling voters on either side of the debate, a challenge that is particularly daunting for those in a primary fight.
“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush. “I applaud Arizona for taking action, but I think the rhetoric on all sides ought to be lowered.”
Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status.
The problems that Republican face on this issue are two-fold.
In states with significant Hispanic populations like Florida, Texas, and California, taking a hard line stand against immigration poses the risk that the GOP will lose support in a fast-growing part of the population. That’s why, for example, you’re unlikely to see anything like the Arizona law being proposed by a California Republican, and why even the conservative Governor of Texas has said that the law is “not right” for his state.
Additionally, the GOP’s ties to the business community, especially small businesses, are likely to make it difficult for the party to fully support enforcement and employment verification measures that increase costs for business. E-verify type programs are not a significant problem for large businesses to implement, for example, but the administrative burden of such programs on small businesses, which is one explanation for the extent to which the Chamber of Commerce departs from orthodox conservativism on the issue of immigration.
In a rational political environment, this issue would be dealt with the way every contentious issue is dealt with, through compromise; perhaps something along these lines. This is hardly a rational environment, however, and any attempt at compromise is likely to be instantly denounced by both extremes. Unless it finds a solution to it’s divide, however, the GOP is likely to find itself left behind.
I've worked in Fla everywinter for 32 yrs and watched the "NO HABLA INGLES" breed like a bunch of rabbits or mink and take jobs away. What WHITE MAN or even BLACK MAN wants out on a job where you can't even talk to your co-workers and listen to their Spanish Music Blasting much less wonder what they are talking about among themselves laughing and giggling.
THEMOJOMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
I lived this for 32yrs.
We have a fleet of Ice Cream Vending trucks(14) that we work every summer near Pittsburgh,Pa. Back in 1977 when I had my first truck it was brand new and cost $19,000. I had payments with GMAC. I started in the business driving someone else's truck. That was in Toledo,Ohio.I had went thru a divorce and lost everything. All I had was a few clothes and a Brand new custom ice cream truck with $659 a month payments,, I had to have something to do in the winter so I headed for Tampa,Fla. A friend with his own truck had been doing the same for a few years. In 1977 the Mexicans were pretty THICK down there then. Every winter for 32yrs. Even though we built up our fleet with a few new trucks every year I still went down to Tampa to work just one of our trucks for 4 1/2 months cause there's always bills to pay even in the winter. It got worse every year down there with the Mexicans. They began to get their own Ice Cream Trucks (mostly some junk van with a LOWES freezer in it and a generator on the back never the REAL THING with a professional cold plate freezer) Selling home made stuff,,you'd think you were in JUAREZ OR MEXICO CITY. They are never legal. Licenses, Health Permits ,NO sales tax number etc etc. Most times they'll sell sandwiches and stuff they make at home AND ice cream. When they get caught they just play that NO HABLA INGLES. After all these years I quit taking one down last winter WHY? They have ruined the image of an Ice Cream Truck out there on the streets. People hear the music and just figure it's some SLUM LOOKING TRUCK. They are beginning to bring in there own Mexican Made ice cream. Some of it is made in south Texas. There's a Mexican Ice Cream manufacturer in Plant City, Fla that won't sell to anybody except Mexicans. They say they only make it for their own PUSH CARTS "BUT" if you're Mexican and have a truck they'll sell to you. I watched this happen IN MY COUNTRY and sometimes I actually felt OUT OF PLACE IN MY OWN COUNTRY. Jamie knows what the Ice Cream Trucks look like down there.
We have a fleet of Ice Cream Vending trucks(14) that we work every summer near Pittsburgh,Pa. Back in 1977 when I had my first truck it was brand new and cost $19,000. I had payments with GMAC. I started in the business driving someone else's truck. That was in Toledo,Ohio.I had went thru a divorce and lost everything. All I had was a few clothes and a Brand new custom ice cream truck with $659 a month payments,, I had to have something to do in the winter so I headed for Tampa,Fla. A friend with his own truck had been doing the same for a few years. In 1977 the Mexicans were pretty THICK down there then. Every winter for 32yrs. Even though we built up our fleet with a few new trucks every year I still went down to Tampa to work just one of our trucks for 4 1/2 months cause there's always bills to pay even in the winter. It got worse every year down there with the Mexicans. They began to get their own Ice Cream Trucks (mostly some junk van with a LOWES freezer in it and a generator on the back never the REAL THING with a professional cold plate freezer) Selling home made stuff,,you'd think you were in JUAREZ OR MEXICO CITY. They are never legal. Licenses, Health Permits ,NO sales tax number etc etc. Most times they'll sell sandwiches and stuff they make at home AND ice cream. When they get caught they just play that NO HABLA INGLES. After all these years I quit taking one down last winter WHY? They have ruined the image of an Ice Cream Truck out there on the streets. People hear the music and just figure it's some SLUM LOOKING TRUCK. They are beginning to bring in there own Mexican Made ice cream. Some of it is made in south Texas. There's a Mexican Ice Cream manufacturer in Plant City, Fla that won't sell to anybody except Mexicans. They say they only make it for their own PUSH CARTS "BUT" if you're Mexican and have a truck they'll sell to you. I watched this happen IN MY COUNTRY and sometimes I actually felt OUT OF PLACE IN MY OWN COUNTRY. Jamie knows what the Ice Cream Trucks look like down there.
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
How do you think they got it? 1521 Spain conquered and colonized the land. It became New Spain until 1821 when they gained their independence. Sound familiar yet? It was very unstable with their civil war and such and between 1910 and 1917 they had a revolution with a constitution made in 1917.
It's very ignorant to say that it was their land first went it wasn't. They stole/took/won/whatever it just that same way to got it from them. If they had it fair they we have it just as fair.
For reference Arizona became a state in 1912.
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
It's true, no one likes that sound anymore where I live. They drive down the street at 8:30-9am when I'm working nights and still stop right at the end of the street and blast that sh1t. And yes, they were mexican too.
65% is a strong turnout when you consider how many people don't live in states that don't deal with this issue and what percentage voted for obama.
Like one of the cartoons said, they are trying to make the Illegals... Illegal OMG what a concept. People are so dense to not realize illegal means illegal every time. And this problem isn't like speeding, that most people do because you get caught speeding you have to pay the consequences, so should being here illegally.
...and not to mention the Treaty of Guadalupe where not only did we beat them in a war, gave back the territory won, we paid them $15M, forgave their debts, and protected the property rights of the people in the new territory.
And the Gadsen purchase where bought more land for $10M.
So, take the insincere white, liberal guilt elsewhere.
And while your at it, compare the quality of life in the South West to anywhere else in Mexico.
And the Gadsen purchase where bought more land for $10M.
So, take the insincere white, liberal guilt elsewhere.
And while your at it, compare the quality of life in the South West to anywhere else in Mexico.
Well ok so they were using the land first and then we took it away in a fair historical fashion through a war to extend the US to the pacific.
It's "the" land as opposed to "their" (or for that matter our) land.
So for now its "our" land.
We've done much better with it than they did or do now with the land they have in Mexico which loudly speaks for itself.
Despite these numbers there isn't the will to round up and deport all these people.
1/3 of people want them to be allowed to stay.
Every 15 or 20 years the government offers an amnesty to provide some illegals with papers.
The 65% figure is an average with support from republicans in the 80-90 range and latinos more like 20-30 with 70 to 80% against (big surprise
)I like to say novel controversial things sometimes to stir up the pot, a tactic that focuses people's attention to respond forcefully and liven up the conversation more than a blather or here here comment would.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Speaking for myself, you're always welcome You give me someone to yell at!
KS
KS
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's one thing to consider. The census doesn't count if the people living there are legal or not. A huge part of the southern Californian population is illegal. When they take a census this give the liberals much more power in Cali. Why would they want to loss that power by making them leave? They wouldn't, and I'm sure this applies to more then just california.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
.... what does territorial expansion, purchases from previous conquerors, and whatnot have to do with ANY of the illegal immigrants today? What happened to people a hundred or so years ago has nothing to do with people today. Should I be clamoring for compensation because Irish and Italian immigrants were mistreated years and years ago?
It is not like they were born in Arizona, kicked out, and are just trying to take back their birthright. We didn't steal ANYTHING from them. What they are doing is taking what they are NOT entitled to. If they have some type of beef with the territorial lines, perhaps they should have their great grandfathers take it up with our great grandfathers.
They are coming over, en mass, looking for a free ride. Forget that stupid antiquated idea of the hard working immigrant. Sure, there are some, and they are everyone's poster boys. But let's face it. For all these illegals, if they were SO hard working, they could have stayed home and with their numbers improved their situation. Most are looking for a free ride, clogging our welfare system, and costing our school systems and other infrastructure tons of money, while giving NOTHING back.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
one troll agreeing with another. Isn't that cute.
:-D great minds think alike :-D