# He needs a immigrant revolution. A revolution - really Mr. Obama?



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Obama: ?Immigrants and Revolutionists?That?s the Story of Looking Forward? | MRCTV


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> Obama: ?Immigrants and Revolutionists?That?s the Story of Looking Forward? | MRCTV


No - he wants immigrants, and revolutionaries.... Nothing there about an immigrant revolution.

Oh, and please tell the first commenter that if you're going to call the Prez a dumb POS, it would be better if you knew how to spell "LEGAL"


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

It's true our country has been developed by immigration in one form or another. The first "immigrants" came here with no laws in effect to prevent them from staying (ie, the Pilgrims). Many more followed under the same lack of laws regarding their entrance to the country. But since Federal laws have been passed to "control" immigration, most who have come have done it in accordance with the law. What gives me difficulty is any politician promoting amnesty for anyone coming here illegally. If we're a nation of laws, then everyone needs to comply with those laws. There is absolutely no reason to allow any type of amnesty for illegals who have come here in a manner which does not comply with our laws. Any politician who advocates a "path to citizenship" for these people is, imo, a traitor who should be removed from office. Either have and enforce the laws, to which everyone is subject, or get rid of the laws. Simple choice, but don't pander for votes and allowing people to stay in this country with no skills or means of support so they end up being dependents of the state that all of the taxpayers are paying for. If people want to stop spending money in the middle east on military activity, fine, bring the troops home and put them to work rounding up all the illegals and deporting them, and then patrolling our borders.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

There were many politicians in the past that were hold accountable when they did or spoke against the law. In the today’s liberal political climate, laws only apply politically correct to some but not all the people in the nation. Depending on race, political party membership or where they come from the law applies or not.
President Obama an immigrant himself - well, let say it this way. His produced paperwork if he would be not politically protected would be not sufficient for any legal immigrant, to receive a green cart. Not even to start talking about becoming president. There are laws who can and cannot too. We live definitely in a liberal political climate that gains anarchy for what reason ever. 

But one thing is for sure. When they accomplished whatever their plane is, they offer us dictatorship in exchange for security and safety in our own home and our children and grandchildren will not have any change to survive without taking it.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm all for immigration, but we have more than our share of illegals in Wisconsin. Lets send all of the rest of them to Rhode Island.:smt1099

GW


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

PT111Pro said:


> .
> 
> But one thing is for sure. When they accomplished whatever their plane is, they offer us dictatorship in exchange for security and safety in our own home and our children and grandchildren will not have any change to survive without taking it.


my biggest fear is that the average person does not even see this coming, and it's happening right around us all the time. "Executive orders" are just the start of this type of governmental "rule". Yes, I know they've existed since the founding of the country, but nobody issues such draconian ones as the past few administrations. And a prime example of government playing on the public's fears was the passage of the Patriot Act. Look at how many governmental spying activities are going on nowadays as a result. Are we any safer? Maybe, maybe not, but we certainly are less free to say and do what we want. And the act was passed due to the public's fear of another terrorist attack without regard to the level of governmental spying that it was authorizing. Sad


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

goldwing said:


> I'm all for immigration, but we have more than our share of illegals in Wisconsin. Lets send all of the rest of them to Rhode Island.:smt1099
> 
> GW


how come your Governor didn't get them all rounded up and put them on a barge out in the middle of Lake Michigan or something? Too busy campaigning for bigger and better things? thought he would have taken care of that problem by now. If they're illegals, they don't belong in this country.:smt117


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> how come your Governor didn't get them all rounded up and put them on a barge out in the middle of Lake Michigan or something? Too busy campaigning for bigger and better things? thought he would have taken care of that problem by now. If they're illegals, they don't belong in this country.


While I can't speak for Governor Walker on immigration, I would like to shake his hand for standing up to the libbies time and again.:smt1099

GW


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

goldwing said:


> While I can't speak for Governor Walker on immigration, I would like to shake his hand for standing up to the libbies time and again.:smt1099
> 
> GW


agreed, 100%. . He's tried to deal with that problem but I just think he's got some more mess there to clean up. If he doesn't get the party nod, I'm sure he'll be back to finish the job. I wish him well and your state well. Get rid of those interlopers who are there in violation of the laws.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Illegal immigration:

1) They are an economic necessity - Not true. The idea that a bunch of desperately poor, uneducated, unskilled, illegal foreigners are an economic necessity is ludicrous. In fact, when you compare cost vs. benefit, it is obvious that they are not only NOT a necessity; they are not even an asset. *Rather, they are a liability and a huge one at that*.

2) They do work Americans won't do - Not true. *They do work Americans won't do for $5 an hour (especially if Americans can collect welfare and unemployment forever).* Of course, if you got rid of the illegals, the jobs wouldn't pay $5 an hour. The people who wanted the work done would have to pay a wage that was attractive enough to get Americans to do the work. And it might even be enough so Americans could support themselves and get off welfare and unemployment!!

3) They work & contribute to our society - So do I. *And if I break the law and commit crimes, I can expect to pay a penalty of some kind.* Anything from a small fine to the death penalty. I do NOT get rewarded. This argument makes no sense.

4) They are just trying to make better lives - Aren't we all? *The difference is that most of us understand that we don't have a right to acquire by illegal means those things that we find difficult to acquire by legal means.* And we certainly don't have the right to do it in a foreign country. Mexico does not allow foreigners to enter their country illegally and break it's laws. If you believe differently, go give it a try. Call me collect from the dungeon. Let me know how it went.....

5) It is impossible to round up and deport the illegals - We don't have to.* All we have to do is remove the incentives that brought them here in the first place.* No jobs. No housing. No services. No benefits. Once we remove the incentives that brought them here, they will leave on their own.

6) It would be too expensive to round them up and deport them - See #5.

7) Immigration control is racist - This is just another play of the race card by people who have no other cards to play. Immigration control is the world-wide status quo. *There is nothing racist about it.* Furthermore, the USA welcomes LEGAL immigrants of all races and ethnicity from all over the world who have gone through the legal immigration process. This is not just a bad argument, it is an attempt to create hatred and division.

8) We are a nation of immigrants - We are a nation that has, historically, allowed and even encouraged legal immigration. And we continue to do so. *The issue at hand is illegal immigration, which has nothing to do with legal immigration.* This argument is totally irrelevant.

9) They are people. We must treat them humanely - Yes & yes. *But lets not pretend like they are victims who were dragged here kicking and screaming against their will.* Nothing could be further from the truth. They came of their own free will and for their own benefit and they broke the law to do it. People should not be rewarded for breaking laws and committing crimes. Sending them home is the right thing to do. There is nothing "draconian" about it.

*No other country on Earth allows foreigners to come in illegally, work illegally, steal jobs from it's citizens, break laws, commit crimes (serious crimes!), evade taxes, etc. etc. etc. And there are no rational reasons why we should either. There are only political reasons, and they aren't rational. There's a war coming unless the gov't stops the flow and sends them ALL back to their home.
*

I can't take credit for writing this, however it expresses my sentiments exactly regarding the illegal invasion of our country. That's exactly what it is *AN INVASION!*


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

I agree with all of your points. We have laws, they break our laws to come here and we don't punish them for it.
They truly are a huge liability. Yes they are willing to do the $5 an hour jobs, but then they line up for food stamps and public assistance. What is the cost of that to our society? and why should any of us legals have to pay for that?
Immigration control is not racist, it is simply enforcement of our already existing laws. 

they are people, we need to treat them humanely.....yes, but nobody forced them to come here, they came of their own free will and against our laws. We should deport them 'humanely"

they all need to be sent back to wherever they illegally came in from. 

We can stop this activity. Increase the border patrols, announce that anyone caught entering illegally will be shot on sight, shoot a few of them and word will get around. 

If you kept the illegals out, the economy would not suffer. People say they do jobs Americans won't do. Well, if nobody will do those jobs, guess what? Employers trying to find people to do those jobs will offer higher wages, Americans will reconsider whether or not they want to do those jobs, will likely take the jobs and we could end up helping out our own economy. Yeah, maybe it means the guy that get's his lawn maintenance done for $40 a month is going to have to start paying $80 a month, but then he will have to decide whether he wants to pay the $80 or get out on the lawnmower himself. Still helps our unemployment situation and does not add to the welfare rolls the way that allowing illegals in does.

We truly need an economic stimulus in this country, and putting more illegals on the welfare rolls is not the way to do it. Keep them out, leave the economy alone, wages for jobs that can't be filled will adjust upwards and more people will be employed, welfare rolls will decrease, economy will be better. Whether or not people realize it. we have had a stagnant economy in this country for the past 7 or 8 years. The only reason it "looks' ok is because the government manipulates the figures. Has anyone here really experienced a real economic "increase" in their income or earnings when you consider your pay in terms of what you can purchase with it? I think not, but we're all left with just enough to keep a roof over our heads and food on our tables. Nobody is really making any economic progress other than the ultra rich. Everybody else is just treading water and, if so, what is the reason to go to work? Might as well throw in the towel and get on public assistance.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

The United States of America claimed after 1991 that the US President is the most powerful Person on Earth. I'll think that is very debatable but he is definitely one of the biggest powers on this Earth today. 

It is amazing, Mr. Obama believes that too and behaves like the Emperor of the entire world and feels obligated to take care one all the little Islamic states and their economy before the one of the US. He said that in many speeches around the world.
But when it's comes to illegal immigration he is totally powerless. Well Bush I and II and Clinton was too. OK with liberals is it clear, they don't recognize any nation of origin besides being a human. In fact they don't know any nations and need votes. Republicans - cheap labor slavery? Do you know the answer?

Both parties in the US seems to like illegal immigrants and the slavery that comes with a illegal status and don't care much about it.
So both Parties don't want to stop illegal immigration.

Try to go illegal to Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, China, Korea, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Russia and many others to overstay your Visa or sneak into Illegal. I hold any bet that you not doing that longer than may be 6 months if you are very lucky and can hide in the woods. 
A friend of mine (Udo H) a German traveled in early 2000 to Mexico and visited the Monuments in Yucatan. He fall in love whit a Mexican girl. She had a very good job and worked as an engineer for Phillips Mexico. So he overstayed his Visa. One evening he wanted to pick his girlfriend up from the job to go for dinner, when the police stopped and asked him for Passport and visitor status. Believe me you are very eager to show your passport because you don't want to be handled by police as one that refuses to give prove of origin. You want to be seen as a Nutcase or a Marsian but you don't want to hide your Passport. Believe everything is better than without telling where you come from.
The police arrested him on the spot, his visa was overdue about 17 days, and was driven directly from the spot to the airport. No he could not go back to the hotel to get his stuff. No he was not alowed to do a telephone call. No one in germany or in mexico knew what happen. First call he did was from Copenhagen Airport in Europe. 
On the Airport a Employee from the German Embassy was waiting for him and my friend was 2 days later in an airplane to Europe and ended up in Copenhagen NL. 
How he get home from Copenhagen was his problem. 2 Days after he was home, he got a Bill from the German Government about 20 000 US-Dollar for the handling of the Mexican Police, the 2 days imprisonment and food in the Mexican airport prison and the Airlinetickets from US Airways and Royal Dutch Airlines and the handling of the German Embassy incl. a employee trip from Mexico to NL and back. And believe me being with 20 000 Dollar in depth with the IRS is no fun. And on top he was awaiting a trail of law in Germany. The Mexican Government had filed a Complain in a German Court. 
I could tell U a story from Mr. Karl-Heinz K that thought he can stay Illegal in the Philippines too. 

So we don't need walls. We don't need laws. We need politicians that are willing to stop illegal immigration regardless if democrat or republican. That's all.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:
This illegal invasion of our country is the single most important issue that we face today. A nation without borders is no longer a nation. These invaders have no knowledge of our history, traditions or of our culture. Many have absolutely no desire to assimilate. Why should they? We've made it too easy for them to live here and speak their native language. They are being used as pawns in order to keep the Democratic Party in power into perpetuity. The Republicans who also support the illegal invasion are being led like sheep's to slaughter in the false belief that the these illegal invaders will then support them. People who are dependent on or are slaves to government will never support the Republican Party. These same Republicans are listening to the advise of none other than Democratic pundits and the main stream news media. How stupid can these Republicans be? Taking advise from people whose only goal is to see the Republican Party relegated to the status of irrelevancy . Yet they are falling for it hook line and sinker. Then there are Republican politicians who are bought and paid for by members of the Chamber of Commerce who only care about cheap labor for their businesses. These politicians are members of the Loathsome Swine Society who only give a shit about their own personal wealth and power at the expense of all who they represent. Sadly, this is what politics and politicians have degenerated into.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Exactly true, which is why we can't trust any of them. Hillary lies and everyone knows it, including her and she knows we all know it, but she keeps on doing it. Republicans who think the illegals would ever vote for them must be smoking pot to begin with. I do agree, I think the huge increase in public assistance and government dependents in this country will be our undoing. And the government can't simply paper it over much longer by continuing to just print more and more paper money. It's not going to work forever. Someday many people will wake up and look around and find they really don't have much at all for themselves. Then it will come down to protecting what you have from others who are trying to take if from you at the most basic levels, like food and shelter. It's coming, and anybody who thinks the government will be there to take care of things is smoking pot too.

It's interesting, personal responsibility and self reliance are the cornerstones of what made this country great, and it will determine who survives the next great social upheaval also.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> Then it will come down to protecting what you have from others who are trying to take if from you at the most basic levels, like food and shelter.


That is the reason why politicians who are members of the Loathsome Swine Society of which both the Clintons along with the Democratic Party are chief contributing members and to a lesser degree some of the Republicans, wish to abolish our 2nd Amendment rights. They know damn well what is happening to this country and they are the ones responsible for it. We just have to convince more people to pay attention as to who they are voting for and throw these people out of office. After all those who are really at fault are those who elected these swines to begin with. Ignorance is no excuse. When the Hell are people going to smarten up? The United States of America as we have come to know it is indeed on the decline.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> RK3369
> A nation without borders is no longer a nation.


That's right and I wished more people would comprehend that.

A civilization that supports for what reason ever street criminals, has stopped being a civilization. Also something that people don't understand anymore.
The first thing that a civilized society does is make borders and laws to protect the civilization and a civilized society.

A nation without borders is no longer a nation
Nice to read but do you really think that there is anyone in school, college or TV and any media that mention that? And if so, do you really believe that anyone understand that

In absence of law = will be peace? Or will be anarchy?
In absence of a Nation = will be what?

You know that there can't be a vacuum. Right? That is a given fact.
So what will be instead law what instead of Nation?
If yoiu ask a liberal they look at you like a deer in the headlights or answer you smart like a 5 year old and get upset when you smile listening to them.



> desertman
> We just have to convince more people to pay attention as to who they are voting for and throw these people out of office.


Sorry to late. Not being a liberal is bad today and even in this very forum the people have to mention that they feel liberal. 
They will vote more and more for liberals because the promise to make a living without work, free healthcare and free stuff is to strong. Bad news for them is they should ask themselves where the stuff and healthcare, housing and food comes from when no one works. If you mentrion that they look at you like a cow in thunder. They really believe Marsians will provide it. I guess they have to build Slave Camps like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and the other liberals to acoplish that. But history has proven that a liberal don't care about that fact if he don't have to see it. The most answer sentence in the Nurnberg trials was. I didn't know that (and believed the stuff comes from theMoon).

What I don't understand is, how Hispanics even illegal under life threatening conditions come in the US and than vote for liberals that they just escaped from. I asked a man from Panama why he as a Illegal voted liberal voted for the liberals. He said, because they managed that he can vote and they promise amnesty. Aha. And when I asked where his children with his grandchildren escape to, when liberalism happen in the US, than he looked like a deer in the headlights.

What I really don't understand is, when true socialists come from Europe, like England, immigrate to the bad republicans in the US, when they had a choice and could immigrate also to central America and live there in the liberal paradise right than and there. Do anyone understand why they don't do that? I mean I went to the US because the USA was not liberal. So why does a liberal immigrate not to North Korea, Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela or any other liberal nation, to live in an desired environment?

You see questions over questions.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

PT111Pro:


> What I don't understand is, how Hispanics even illegal under life threatening conditions come in the US and than vote for liberals that they just escaped from.


Well you see "PT" they've already bankrupted their own society so there is no one left to bankrupt or support them. The good old USA is known throughout the world as the land of plenty. There's plenty to go around here to support the entire world's indigent population. Or so they think. They haven't quite bankrupted everyone here yet. *However we are getting there.* There used to be a time in the not too distant past where one income could support a family of four and still own a home and put the kids through college. Not so anymore. Now it requires for most people two incomes. Soon it will require two or more incomes with multiple jobs, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is *if* the jobs are even available.

The wealthy? They will always be wealthy. The burden of supporting all of these invaders will eventually fall on the shoulders of the middle class as there are not enough wealthy people to go around to accomplish this monumental task. Besides if we were to bankrupt all of the wealthy into oblivion, who would provide the jobs? Since society requires specific occupations to maintain it, that is: farming, transportation, medical, housing, police, fire, military, etc. And since there will no longer be any job creators left, the only way that these services can be provided is through forced and or assigned labor. They will then have achieved true equality. Except that is for those who will rule over us.

As much as there are many in the Republican Party that are despicable human beings. I could never support anyone in the Democratic Party. I am against everything and anything that party stands for. The Democratic Party depends upon an indigent impoverished class of people that are totally dependent on government in order to maintain their power structure. *Dependency on government never lifts anyone out of poverty, it condemns and enslaves them to it.* That is exactly what the Democratic Party wants and needs to sustain them. They do not want to see anyone succeed. When individuals succeed on their own they no longer need the Democratic Party with their false hopes and promises of a better life at the expense of everyone else. This is no different than scoundrels such as the Rev's. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who thrive on racism in the United States. This also includes the black militant in the White House. If there were no racism in the United States none of these individuals would have ever gotten to where they are today. It is within their own selfish interests that they continually fan the flames of racism and further divide the country along racial lines. Coincidentally they all happen to be Democrats.

The Democratic Party consistantly vilifies people who are wealthy, yet most of their leaders are or have been filthy rich or have become filthy rich once they have achieved political office. They are without question the biggest bunch of phony hypocrites. One need only look at their new standard bearer and chosen presidential candidate "Da Bitch" and her despicable low life husband. Both pathological liars and corrupt individuals to the core.

From the Huffington Post hardly a conservative news outlet:


> But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.


Then there's George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, *Michael Bloomberg to name a few. Then we have the Kennedy's, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, The Clinton's, Nancy Pelosi, John Corzine, Mark Warner, Al Gore, and Robert Rubin. Sure the Republicans have their share of wealthy people and politicians but you rarely see them out there condemning it.

*Bloomberg was a life long Liberal Democrat who became a Republican only so he could secure the Republican nomination for Mayor of NYC as it didn't play out too well if he were to run as a filthy rich Democrat at least not in NYC. He later quit the Republican Party and become an independent. His political philosophy has always been aligned with the Democratic Party. You do not become Mayor in a city such as New York if you believed in Republican principles. Same is true for people such as Romney and Christie who have been and in the case of Christie governors of the most Liberal states in America.

Sorry for the long political rant, but this is how I see it. I had to get it out.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

PT111Pro said:


> I mean I went to the US because the USA was not liberal. So why does a liberal immigrate not to North Korea, Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela or any other liberal nation, to live in an desired environment?
> 
> You see questions over questions.


Because those have become fascist dictatorships where everyone but the ruling class lives in abject poverty. Socialism does not work, just like Communism does not work. It only serves to take away the ability of people to prosper by their efforts, and it forces them to work to support their neighbors. From a pure genetic standpoint, the only thing you should really have any concern for is your own family, whether by blood or marriage. Beyond that, no one is going to help you much. Socialism and Communism take what you produce and redistribute it so that eventually, you learn that you are not benefitting by your efforts, you are supporting a lot of other people that you don't really care about to begin with. The family is the smallest tribal unit, and defense and providing for the family is how mankind evolved from the animals. Capitalism, with all it's faults, is the only system that at least gives people the promise of being able to benefit from the fruits of their labors.

And I think Desertman is correct, the politicians do understand that the day of reckoning is coming. That's why the majority of them are trying to talk us into giving up our ability to defend ourselves. Law abiding citizens with weapons are not going to increase crime, and the politicians know it. But they are going to be able to resist forceful takeover by a government that is seeking to control society in the face of food shortages, power shortages, and mass civil unrest. We saw this the past week in Baltimore. Look at what people with nothing to loose do when given the opportunity. Does anybody really think it will be any different when food becomes scarce, or you can't get gasoline, or electricity is put on timed blackouts? I do believe the government is well aware that they can not continue the currency shell game forever and that eventually, we are going to be looking at very severe inflation and a huge jump in the price of food and energy, and as a result, a huge deflation in the value of the dollar. It's coming, just a matter of when, imo.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Actually, it is a very good ploy by democrats to allow continual amnesty for multitudes of illegal immigrants to enter the country. The more the merrier, and you know why?

Because, due to motor voter registration(i.e obtaining a drivers license) and the like and the zealous attempts by the Obama excecutive branch to fight against and disallow states to enact legislation having one to prove they are legal aliens eligible to vote.

Suffice to say, all these illegal voters will be looking to vote for those who gave illegals amnesty(i.e. the Democrat party).

If there is one thing that will erode our system of government and free elections, it would be this.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I believe that the whole issue has been perverted, and has reduced to yet another "us against them" wedge of divisive unreality.
It isn't about "immigration" at all. Immigration is a mere smokescreen. (I don't know what it's really about, but I'm sure that it isn't immigration.)
If it were about immigration, you would see relaxed permissiveness toward _all_ potential immigrants.

But there remains, now, two very different groups ("classes"?) of potential immigrants:
Those who fill out the forms, wait in the lines, are patient about the quota restrictions, and finally arrive here legally, and
Those who ignore the forms, cut past the lines, pay no attention to the quota restrictions, and just show up and squat.

If you were running the US government, which group would receive your attention, care, and aid?
Which group would you welcome with open arms?
Which would you prefer as new US citizens?

What I cannot understand-and if you can offer a rational explanation, please do-is why the US government does not offer those people pouring into the country illegally, looking for jobs and economic improvement, a means of entering the US legally, without red tape restrictions, without quotas, but _temporarily, only to seek employment_.
Wouldn't that solve the entire problem? (Well, at least I think that it would.)
And if you agree with me, please also tell me why our government steadfastly refuses to implement this easy-to-administer, simple solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
(And don't tell me that it's the Democrats. Republican congresses and administrations haven't signed-onto this solution either.)

Another simple, equitable solution would be to kill-off the quota system, and let every acceptable potential immigrant into the US, without having to spend the requisite time on the quota-driven waiting list.
Why are we permitting illegals to remain, while forbidding more-desirable, potential legal immigrants from even entering? (This really boggles my mind.)

Ideas, anyone? Explanations?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

denner:


> Because, due to motor voter registration(i.e obtaining a drivers license) and the like and the zealous attempts by the Obama excecutive branch to fight against and disallow states to enact legislation having one to prove they are legal aliens eligible to vote.


In addition, once granted any type of amnesty. The illegal invaders will be allowed to work here legally and as a result will be paying taxes. Soon there will be cries from the "Left" that this is taxation without representation followed by demands that they should be able to vote. As it is now in order to vote one must be an American citizen either by birth which I totally disagree with in the case of "anchor babies" or immigrating to this country legally and meeting all the legal requirements. Such as a means to support yourself and the ability to read, write and understand the English language along with a knowledge of American history. One thing that really pisses me off is when you go to the voting booth there are instructions that are written in both English and Spanish. If one needs to be fluent in English in order to become a citizen and only citizens are allowed to vote, then why is this even necessary?

Unfortunately, the horse has left the barn years ago and he's not coming back. These illegal invaders now have political clout particularly in the Democratic Party that represents them for nefarious reasons and some in the Republican Party who are scared to death of them. Problem is that many of the politicians who belong to the Loathsome Swine Society will never be affected by the damage that they have caused to the rest of the country. Most of which who have lived pampered lives and have not had to deal with the everyday struggles of the common person. I get a kick out of "Da Bitch" trying to pretend she's one of us. Yeah right! It's amazing that some people will fall for it.



> If there is one thing that will erode our system of government and free elections, it would be this.


Our system of government has already been eroded. Same for free elections. The system is rigged towards the benefit of the established party favorites. The problem is: How are we ever going to get it back? That is if we ever even had it in the first place. Politics in and of itself is a dirty and corrupt entity which brings out the worst in human behavior. In order to become a politician one has to prostitute themselves to the lowest common denominator. Sure there are still a few good honest politicians out there who sincerely want to change America for the benefit of all. Ones that do indeed stand up for their principles, but it is getting to be exceedingly difficult to be able to distinguish between the two. Once they get elected and have won the prize, God only knows what they will do when the power of corruption eats away at their souls.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

Just a theory Steve. Take it at face value. The number of illegal aliens that are already here, combined with those who have been given amnesty are a large enough voting block to make our lawmakers cringe. The politicians who seem to care more about the next election than the good of our country make their decisions on immigration based on votes. To my thinking, this is a great argument for term limits so that this is not an issue. 

For those who would say "Illegal aliens can't vote!" I ask why do the Democrats fight voter I.D. as hard as they do? Something to ponder I guess.:smt009

GW


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> What I cannot understand-and if you can offer a rational explanation, please do-is why the US government does not offer those people pouring into the country illegally, looking for jobs and economic improvement, a means of entering the US legally, without red tape restrictions, without quotas, but _temporarily, only to seek employment_.
> Wouldn't that solve the entire problem? (Well, at least I think that it would.)
> And if you agree with me, please also tell me why our government steadfastly refuses to implement this easy-to-administer, simple solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
> (And don't tell me that it's the Democrats. Republican congresses and administrations haven't signed-onto this solution either.)
> ...


initial thought, several years ago when I still lived in New York I worked in the Finance department of a Local Diagnostic and Treatment Center (polite name for a Medicaid clinic). One of the programs we operated was providing Family Planning services. At one point, when the "guest worker" crunch and Illegal immigration was becoming more of an issue, we were instructed by the NY Health Department that we were supposed to provide care to patients who came in without regard to whether or not they were US citizens. We had a large seasonal population of migrant farm workers, many of whom were from Mexico or other Central American countries. They came to the clinic for free care because their incomes were low and they knew we would not ask for any identification or immigration status information. Thus, even the temporary guest workers will put a strain on the social welfare system, probably much more than they would contribute to the economy and certainly to the tax base. Most of those people were paying no taxes but getting at least free medical services and may have been getting other free services. I think if the truth about the "temporary guest worker program" were really understood by most of the population, many folks would object to that also, because although they are only temporary, most states are required by the Feds to provide free or low cost medical care to them without regard to citizenship status.

I'm also not sure whether "guest" workers are truly interested in staying here and gaining citizenship as much as they are interested in earning money to send hone. I don't know, but that could also be a reason why the politicians don't really cater to them, the fact that they may not really be all that interested in staying here, but would rather periodically return to their home country. I know a lot of folks that keep horses in southern areas, primarily Texas, Arizona, will employ "guest" workers who come across illegally, work for a few months, go back home for a few months, come back for a few months, and just tend to live that way on a regular basis. Not sure why but it seems to happen quite regularly, or at least it used to back when we were involved with horses.

To me, it seems if the politicians are going to push for any system that clearly violates established law, it would be for one which may eventually get them some voter support. I don't think for the most part, guest workers are going to be inclined to vote, or even be around long enough to vote in many cases. Just a hunch about why the politicians don't really go after that program. I think it's all about votes and the fact that they can promise everything to the illegals that want to stay here and for the most part, the illegals will get what they want in economic and social support services, and think the politicians giving them all the free stuff are just wonderful and be inclined to vote for them. At least that's what I think motivates the politicians.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> I think if the truth about the "temporary guest worker program" were really understood by most of the population, many folks would object to that also, because although they are only temporary, most states are required by the Feds to provide free or low cost medical care to them without regard to citizenship status.


Outstanding! Not only that but there are not enough jobs to go around to employ all Americans that want them. Maybe we could thin out the welfare rolls by requiring that all able bodied welfare recipients accept those jobs that "Americans won't do". The only time we should even begin to entertain any type of guest worker program here in the United States is if there is a severe labor shortage. Which I doubt there will ever be. Even then it should not result in citizenship unless all of the requirements are met to become a legal citizen as it is now.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

desertman said:


> ...Not only that but there are not enough jobs to go around to employ all Americans that want them. *Maybe we could thin out the welfare rolls by requiring that all able bodied welfare recipients accept those jobs that "Americans won't do".* The only time we should even begin to entertain any type of guest worker program here in the United States is if there is a severe labor shortage. Which I doubt there will ever be. Even then it should not result in citizenship unless all of the requirements are met to become a legal citizen as it is now. [emphasis added]


We couldn't "thin out the welfare rolls" quite so easily, because we now have at least two (and maybe three) generations of dole-suckers who are too enslaved by the welfare system to know how to work, much less how to apply for a job, how to hold a job, and why having a job is important.

It's our own fault. When I say that people are "enslaved" by the welfare system, I truly mean exactly that. Slavery is a pernicious system, and that applies equally to working in the fields under the lash of the overseer, or receiving "free money" at the seemingly benign behest of Progressive do-gooders who think that they are better equalizing the distribution of the nation's wealth.
No matter to which kind of slavery one is subject, any enslavement system removes all incentive, all ability to plan and self-direct, and also all understanding of personal responsibility. All that interests the slave is avoiding work that does not directly benefit him, and appeasing the master and avoiding punishment.

Since we have an entire sub-culture based upon welfare slavery, all members of which are unwilling to work for a living, we really do need "guest workers" to do the low-end and physical-labor jobs that the better-educated native workforce neither needs nor wants to do.
There is absolutely no need to provide these legal guest workers with a path to citizenship, since they would not be subject to arrest and deportation (to avoid which is why illegals want citizenship). A legal guest worker would be happy retaining his own native citizenship, and also would be happy to return to his native land and his family when he has become economically satisfied here.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:
I agree with most of what you said. Welfare is indeed a form of slavery. People who are on welfare are condemned to a life of poverty. However once the welfare benefits are cut off or if the able bodied recipients realize that the benefits will be for a limited amount of time they will have no choice but to take these jobs. On the other hand they may turn to crime which I'm sure that many of them already are involved in, such as dealing drugs to supplement their income. I collected unemployment benefits twice in my lifetime, once when the company that I worked for went bankrupt and the other when another company relocated 700 miles away. At the time I was required to actively seek work otherwise my benefits would be cut off. I see no reason why this approach can not be applied to those who are on the welfare rolls who are able bodied and capable of doing unskilled labor. After all I had to look for a job or otherwise lose my benefits, and I never collected welfare as a living. Yet people who make a living off of other people can continue on. Somethings just not right.

The problem with guest workers as I see it is that once they are allowed to stay here, work here and pay taxes they will be able to vote regardless if they are citizens or not. Senator Chuck "U" Schumer has already entertained that idea with the reasoning that they would be paying taxes without representation. Hate to say this but Chuck "U" is right, this is clearly unconstitutional. Or should they be able to work and pay no taxes to get around that issue? If that's the case then why should any of us who work and play by the rules have to pay taxes? The other issue is when they send money back to their home countries this only encourages their home countries to send even more of them to the good old USA. Let their home countries solve their own economic problems instead of sending them here. The United States of America cannot become the world's dumping ground. Nothing good will ever happen by importing God knows how many more of the world's impoverished people into the United States even if it is temporary.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

desertman said:


> ...once the welfare benefits are cut off...they will have no choice but to take these jobs. *On the other hand they may turn to crime*...[When] I collected unemployment benefits...I was required to actively seek work otherwise my benefits would be cut off. I see no reason why this approach can not be applied to those who are on the welfare rolls who are able bodied and capable of doing unskilled labor...[emphasis added]


Welfare benefits will never be "cut off" because that would give the appearance of heartless cruelty, and creating that appearance would be political suicide to any politician, and, equally, to any political party.
Further, I postulate that the anger at "the system" felt by the subjects of a sharp welfare cutoff would almost necessarily lead to increased crime. The ex-recipients who were sharply cut off from their dole-teat without adequate training, and without supervision (see below), would really have nowhere else to go.

The best way of ending the dole would indeed be a gradual weaning, allowing the recipient to continue to collect the dole (or most of it) while he or she began working. But current practice, based upon perverted morality and fears that the system could be gamed, militates strongly against a gradual benefit cutoff.
For instance, although we know absolutely that when there are two parents in the home, and especially when one of the parents is a man, the children grow up much less likely to become criminals and thugs; and yet the rules of the dole require that the recipient household be single-parent, and that the single parent be female. That rule is based upon both perverted morality ("unmarried couples are bad") and "gaming" possibilities (the man could covertly be earning a living, while the woman receives the dole).
When a system exhibits such rigidity, which rigidity is, to a great extent, based upon saving money by stinting on supervision and oversight, that system would be incapable by definition of properly supervising the gradual weaning, and of properly providing the necessary training, required to get people off of the dole.

It ain't gonna happen. Not in our lifetime, anyway.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> Welfare benefits will never be "cut off" because that would give the appearance of heartless cruelty, and creating that appearance would be political suicide to any politician, and, equally, to any political party.


No arguments from me there, brother! Along with the rest of your post. It's a shame that it has gotten to that point. Welfare should never have gotten to the point of supporting a permanent lifestyle. As the old saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The problem is what can we do about it now? I really do not have that answer.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> .......The only time we should even begin to entertain any type of guest worker program here in the United States is if there is a severe labor shortage. .


lol, we already have the temporary (guest) worker program in America, it's called the part of society that doesn't want to work to begin with. The only time they will work is when they have to to get enough time in a job to be eligible for unemployment and food stamps again. That's already the "temporary" worker program we have in this country.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Welfare benefits will never be "cut off" because that would give the appearance of heartless cruelty, and creating that appearance would be political suicide to any politician, and, equally, to any political party.
> Further, I postulate that the anger at "the system" felt by the subjects of a sharp welfare cutoff would almost necessarily lead to increased crime. The ex-recipients who were sharply cut off from their dole-teat without adequate training, and without supervision (see below), would really have nowhere else to go.
> 
> The best way of ending the dole would indeed be a gradual weaning, allowing the recipient to continue to collect the dole (or most of it) while he or she began working. But current practice, based upon perverted morality and fears that the system could be gamed, militates strongly against a gradual benefit cutoff.
> ...


Sir, you have hit the nail on the head. I work for a Housing Authority and I see this every day. We can not afford the staff or systems to catch all the cheats, and we know with relative certainty that a high percentage of people getting housing benefits are not disclosing all their household income as they are required to do. There is no way the Federal government is ever going to ramp up spending on these programs to the level that would be required to effectively monitor the programs to ensure that here wasn't a high level of abuse going on. And when we do catch somebody at it, the court system never sends them to jail because they are non violent offenders and the jails are already overcrowded. They usually get a number of years of probation and some amount of restitution which they hardly ever fully repay because the probation system is so overloaded they can't keep track of who is living where. The entire system is one huge comedy of errors, but nobody wants to say it because the average person doesn't understand it one bit, nor do they want to think the the government is not doing what it should be doing.

So you are completely correct, it ain't never gonna happen, not in our lifetime anyway. if it did happen, all the major cities in the country would look like Baltimore did a week or so ago.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> So you are completely correct, it ain't never gonna happen, not in our lifetime anyway. if it did happen, *all the major cities in the country would look like Baltimore did a week or so ago.*


Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. They're practically all run by Democrats. Let them wallow in it.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. They're practically all run by Democrats. Let them wallow in it.


I could accept that as long as it didn't come into my neighborhood. But then, I've been thinking for a few years that when the shtf I'll be having to sit on the front porch or near the front door with a battery of arms nearby. If our social system for food, fuel and shelter breaks down, we have already seen that much of the population is not afraid of using physical force to loot what they want. Police nor the National Guard will be able to control it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:
I was only half serious, I really feel bad for those who have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods. I just wish that the Democrats could have their own little country and leave the rest of us the hell alone. Then we'll have proof as to which political philosophy works best. As if we don't already as most of the major cities in the United States are controlled by Democrats and coincidentally are the most miserable broken down places to live. When was the last time a riot broke out in a Republican controlled city? Unfortunately riots are more than likely to take place where it's residents have no plausible means to defend themselves. Democrats have seen to that. Hell, the Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and David Dinkens who was Mayor of New York City during the Crown Heights riots were okay with allowing these criminal miscreants to burn down and loot their own neighborhoods. Gee, I wonder who's side they were on? Now you have the black militant's justice department investigating the Baltimore police.

What I'd like to know is where is the knife that Mr. Gray was in possession of at the time of his arrest? Was it or wasn't it legal which was the basis for MR. Gray's arrest and subsequent demise? What are those who are in the process of trying and convicting those 6 police officers in the court of public opinion trying to hide? Let's see the knife. It will answer any questions or doubts as to why Mr. Gray was arrested. I'm guessing that it was indeed illegal and this will turn into another "hands up don't shoot" type of propaganda campaign. Brought on by Marilyn Mosby. The Baltimore Police Department is now being "Lynched" by the black militant's "just us" department and it's new attorney general with a name to match.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

My bet is that Mr. Gray was criminally mishandled by BPD.

Even if the knife he was carrying was illegal, the death penalty would not have applied to him because of it.
Even if he physically resisted arrest, and array of six trained cops should have been able to nab him with minimum physical damage.
Further, giving him a rough ride in a police van while he was manacled but not seat-belted, after he had been reduced to immobile, foot-dragging incapacity, was criminal activity.

Gray died for no good reason.
The cops involved misbehaved.

At best, the involved cops are guilty of criminal negligence. I could be manslaughter. It may be murder.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

[


> RK3369
> I was only half serious, I really feel bad for those who have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods.


It is very sad and I really feel with the victims of the democrat party. But you have to see, that the democrats and the liberals hate people that make their own living. The democrats not more than a bunch of gimmi stuff people, a lot stuff for free and everyone that get his own is therefore naturally the enemy of any liberal. Go to Europe and tell the people you are self employed, or you have a small business. The straight hate from the liberals slaps you in the face. It is there almost physical. Liberals have no respect from your livelihood if it is not a form of government handout.


> RK3369
> I just wish that the Democrats could have their own little country and leave the rest of us the hell alone. Then we'll have proof as to which political philosophy works best.


They tried that already. That was the cold war. It was a contest between the american way of life and socialistic slavery. The Soviet Union was the newest liberal experiment to enslave people. It didn't work like 1000 times and more in the last 4000 Years and like always it cost Millions and Millions of peoples life. And it will again cost the life of Millions and millions get cripplet or will end up as guinea picks in the industry. That is also a face of liberalism that the liberals keep quiet. Dr. Mengele is the Name of the Scientist that became famos in the 1940ties for human guinea picks. Kucharov the one in the socialist paradise of the Soviet Union.

The difference between the american way of life and socialism is: In America were lines in fronmt of Theatres to see the newest movie with Rock Hudson and Doris Day. At the same time in the socialistic paradise of the CCP, GDR, Democratic republic of Poland and other socialistic pparadises the people stayed in food lines often 12-18 hours for a slice of bread so the children don't starv from hunger. That is the difference between being a liberal and a conservative. Why on earth doies no one check the history. The newest history even. Why not looking accross the border to Cuba to see how liberalism works? Why not looking to North Korea or any African liberal nation?

My question is, why the liberals that had immigrated to the USA went to the US? That makes no sense. There are still today socialistic countries and nations that they could have immigrated to and which would meet the desired form of government. They went from England, Nederland ...etc... directly to the US, the natural enemy of the socialist hand outers. 
So why on earth did they not go to the Soviet Union instead? Why didn't they go to Mexico, Venezuela, Honduras, North Korea, China, South Africa, Cuba, and other. I mean why did they immigrate to a country into a nation that society and form of government they hate and disrespect? I mean what is more disrespectful than come in a nation and tell them, I disrespect you I don't like what you do, call you stupid idiots and try to take over?

I mean I personally left the great society of socialism immediately, even before it was real implemented to the US, because the US was NOT liberal. What sense would that make to leave my home, family to go somewhere that is the same that I come from or that I hate and feel the need to change?

Why on earth did they not stay where they are in the Netherlands, England, etc.. when it is there so much better? Does that makes any sense? I think not. It only becomes sense in form of the view of the bigger goal to implement the world communism. Every socialist a soldier for the good cause. Right?

Why on earth is someone taking his family, often steals or even kills someone else in his/her own country to have the money for the professional scout (a fact that no one really want to talk about because the illegal are all such good people - right?), that brings them illegal across the boarder, and than vote illegally and immediately for the same criminals in the politics, that they just escaped from.

You have to be a hard core liberal to understand that.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> Steve
> Even if the knife he was carrying was illegal, the death penalty would not have applied to him because of it.


Steve please don't fall in the liberal trap of up side down argumentation. Mr. Brown did not die because he carried a knife. No one gave him the death penalty either. That is all liberal new speech.

No - Mr. Brown death was caused by his actions and the consequences thereof and not because he had a knife in his pocket.

I cannot jump from a Tower and afterwards I blame the shoes that I was wearing or the Tower elevator, or the tower guard for what happen.

Mr. Brown got what he ask for. He had to face the consequences for his own actions. Liberals don't like that because when they recognize self responsibility, a anarchy is not possible. And without anarchy no rescue blackmail to implement a Dictatorship and martial law.

That is what it is.

Why Mr. Brown and not Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith even carried a 44cal Revolver in the Pocket. So why Mr. Brown and not Mr. Smith. That answer is very simple. mr. Smith did not rob a gas Station, did not flee the szeen, Get therefore not stoped by police and did not refuse arrest and did not attack the police man. That's why Mr. brown and not Mr. Smith and that is the reason why Mr. Smith went peacful home even with a illegal revolver in the pocket and Mr. Brown get killed.

So don't fall in that liberal trap anyone had given Mr. Brown a death penalty. Again: Mr. Brown get killed by his own free chosen actions and not by anything else.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

I just don't know how or why Mr. Gray died, I wasn't there, neither were any of us. The problem I have with all of this is that I just do not trust public officials that have an agenda. In this case and in Ferguson the agenda is a war on law enforcement. Ferguson we now know was perpetuated on a lie "hands up don't shoot". Officer Darren Wilson was tried and convicted by the media and public officials including the black militant in the White House. Days of rioting and looting followed. Baltimore is no different. The question now is if these 6 officers are eventually exonerated will Baltimore burn again? My guess is yes only worse. More than likely they will be found guilty only to avoid the ensuing riots and violence. Is this justice? Regardless of the facts mob justice rules! This does not speak too well for the inner city communities and only perpetuates the perception that the majority of the people who live there are nothing more than common criminals. Common criminals who obviously do not respect law and order just waiting for the opportunity to burn their own communities down. One thing we do know is that both Freddie Gray and Michael Brown were both common criminals. There is no doubt in my mind that if both were alive today they too would have been active participants in the rioting and looting.

One things for sure I certainly would not want to have a career in law enforcement. I wonder why there were no riots after NYC Police Officer Brian Moore, 25 who was white was shot and killed by a black man?


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

The bad news are, that the liberals and the liberal racist leader don't care what happen to people. They look at people only in a way to fulfill a purpose. In liberalism a human being is valued on his/her function or if they can be used for a political purpose. So sad.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

PT111Pro:


> The bad news are, that the liberals and the liberal racist leader don't care what happen to people. They look at people only in a way to fulfill a purpose. In liberalism a human being is valued on his/her function or if they can be used for a political purpose. So sad.


You've hit the nail right on the head, my friend. *I just do not trust anything that comes out of their mouths.* They all have a sordid agenda. All of these cities have one thing in common they are all run and have been run by Democrats, it's been that way for decades. Just look at the results. Have they lifted this class of people out of poverty and into productive lives? As I've explained earlier in one of my posts it's within their best interests to maintain and grow an impoverished class of people. That is their chief motivation for wanting to import tens of millions more poorly educated impoverished people into the United States, and grant amnesty to those who are already here illegally. They could care less about their financial well being. *They are a means to an end.* The only ones that benefit are the seedy politicians who will rule over and enslave them. Politicians who love to go out there and fan the flames. Too bad that these people just can't figure that out.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Ideas, anyone? Explanations?


Yes, it's very simple. The Democrat Party machine has mastered voter fraud to the point that they need a continuous supply of red meat to vote for all of the dead people they have registered. Hell, even Texas is estimated to have 24 million dead voters, and we are among the lowest in number. Without illegal voters, Republicans would probably pull 75% of the vote in Texas. Democrats cannot sell socialism to enough home-grown morons to win elections without targeting specific electoral college hotspots for manipulating ballot boxes. Why do democrats fight so hard for amnesty to illegals? They don't give a damn about the poor people, never have, really. It's just a matter of maintaining power for a morally bankrupt party. There is no other logical conclusion to be reached.

Sure, the moderate Republican leadership is complicit, because they are also morally bankrupt cowards who want to maintain their power, too. Their political advisors are the second string, that weren't devious enough to work for the Democrats, but they still tell them that they don't dare be seen as the racists that the liberal media will hang on them. Besides, they are buddies with the Democrats because they have been playing games with the Democrats for 20-30 years.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> desertman
> Have they lifted this class of people out of poverty and into productive lives?


No sure not. Actually no where on earth ever. They turn prosper societies in food lines of poverty and death.

In 1989 in Germany as an example, I helped out with the Salvation Army on Munich Railway station. We cooked about 15 gallons of soup, often a Chicken Noodle soup for the Homeless in Munich. The City of Munich paid to most of that Soup kitchen and it was the only place where homeless could get a meal for free. We often threw more than the half away.
If you would tell the Germans that a German citizen will very soon have no other choice than going with his/her children to a soup kitchen, the people would have laugh their ass off. Well they had forgotten already what socialism is all about. Not ever Hitler again but voted socialist. How numb is that only they use different words? In Germany lived in 1990 about 49 Million people and about 45 000 where homeless. 1.9 Millions were in need of government aid.

The Socialists took over in 1991 and 1998, after 7 years of socialism the situation was very different. 
In 1998 the socialist pushed 39 Millions of Muslim, most uneducated illiterate Turks and Africans from Eritrea into the country. The Tax exploded and the people had only 30% left of their monthly paycheck. Huhu Sail so far to your free education and free healthcare and "you" didn't have to work. Right?

That means for them people that made his GED after the year 2000, that your boss have to pay you 5000 Dollar a month or 60 000 Dollar a year so you have 1500 dollar in your pocket each month. That means for them that works on a hour wages: 32.00 Dollars an hour to have a paycheck of 1500 Dollars a month.
That means also exploding rent prices for apartments. All the people that come in need a place to live right. So the prices going up. It's actually a fact. The energy prices going up because of the greater demand and foot prices going up too. There are more people that want to eat, being housed and need energy. I mean even a liberal should comprehend that and even a liberal mind should know that this can only be made if the government takes the money from the existing pole of citizen.
Liberal hate facts, actually the facts prove liberals wrong at all times and that since 4000 years now. Thats way I say Ignorace is a choice.

Germany, but it looks all over Europe the same.
In 1990 there were 45 000 homeless
In 1990 there were 19.5 Millions Homeless with the tendency to grow.
The city of Munich had bout 500-1000 people that needed a public food kitchen. None of them were children. Germany had no children in need of foot, and clothing since the WW II 1945 anymore.
In 1999 after the socialist revolution of Europe in Munich City there where 150 000 people on food lines and 30 000 children in need tendency rapidly to grow.

Just something to think about. The last Socialist between 1945 and the year 2010, the people of socialism had to wall them self in, because the people fled, escaped socialism. The borders where made from military equipment like anti person mines, automatic machine guns, bombs. If socialism would be so wonderful why do they always have to lock them in? Why do they have to kill people when they want to leave? And why is it that the people in a New York minute get thrown in wildest unimaginable and unbearable poverty in socialism. They don't need even 10 years to do that.

The footprint of socialism is slavery, anarchy, civilian unrest, hunger, poverty, loss of shelter, child slavery, legalized child sex slaves, mass-murder, political correct imprisonment, torture and a live as a human guinea pick for the chemical industry.
That is the food print of socialism. Always and this since 4000 years.

And I know Saildesign this time, this time it will be different than the last 4000 years. Yea - right, you only have to denial the facts.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Bisley said:


> ...Texas is estimated to have 24 million dead voters...


How can "they" get away with that? Texas doesn't even have 24 million _live_ voters.

What happened to all those "wide open spaces."
Have they been filled-in with illegal immigrants and dead "voters"?


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I am allowed to vote. They gave me a voter registration. The democrats managed that.
I told the democrat representative like the republican that this is illegal. They just don't care. Not this side and not this side. That is a fact.

Oh - and I never voted in the US because that would be illegal even when the democrats furbished the paperwork because my late wife was a hard core democrat and very involve. One reason I know how they tick.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> How can "they" get away with that? Texas doesn't even have 24 million _live_ voters.
> 
> What happened to all those "wide open spaces."
> Have they been filled-in with illegal immigrants and dead "voters"?


You are right. I got very tangled up in the numbers and now I can't find the source I thought I read that in, some time ago. I should know better than to try to go from memory, these days.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Don't forget, some have 2-3 voter registrations in different precincts. 
Like I said based on personal experience, no one on both aisles, not even the police want to know it. I tried already during J Kerry nomination. I guess is a to political issue and to many people involved that want to be elected. 
I'll think that is one of that US American "Don't rock the boat" issues.


----------



## bullet1234 (Nov 14, 2011)

All a part of his *fundamentally* changing the USA like he
said he was going to do.


----------

