Comments on: Stop Shooting RINOs

By: 24AheadDotCom

24AheadDotCom — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:01:49 +0000

Richard Ivory says: “If the RINO hunters have their way, they would choose candidates who emphasized social issues such as: anti-immigration or abortion over more substantive issues like job creation as their ideal winning strategy.”

It was similar comments from TimKaine that caused me to doubt his intelligence, and the same applies to Ivory. Can anyone trust the thoughts of someone who thinks that jobs and immigration aren’t linked? Can anyone trust the thoughts of someone who thinks the immigration – one of the major means by which the far-left and the Dems obtain power – isn’t important?

Don’t shoot RINOs, but don’t take the advice of those who are either corrupt or who can’t figure things out.

P.S. For more on the linkage, see this:

http://24ahead.com/hundreds-thousands-more-foreign-citizens-got-work-permits-an

Ivory would have you ignore that.

By: You Had Your Tea Party » Cold Fury

You Had Your Tea Party » Cold Fury — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:04:24 +0000

[...] Dionne, the Frum-pwumps say “Stop Shooting RINOS”: The population that Reagan reached out to in the 80’s is getting older and replacing them is a [...]

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:15:41 +0000

First, I'm talking about ILLEGAL immigration. Can't you people read or interpret that word for what it is?

"Have I misinterpreted your statement? Did you intend these words to mean something else?"

The words mean what they mean. You, however, fabricated a conclusion that wasn't made, that's way beyond misinterpretation.

This is the offending sentence:

"So you believe that the key to future GOP victories is to keep immigrants out."

You wrote that, right? OK, tell me where I said I wanted to keep immigrants out? Where? How do you get that from what I wrote? You see, that is a lie. You are drawing a completely false conclusion. It is your own fantasy that I said tor implied this.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:55:40 +0000

Franco: How should I interpret your earlier statement:

"Even if he [Bush] held 44% [of Hispanics] that is a losing proposition at best, but the new Hispanic citizens are and will be increasingly Democrat. They are poorer and less integrated into society and less educated (sorry but less educated poor people lean Democrat overwhelmingly) and less educated people who don't really understand our country are fodder for Democrat pandering and victim politics. This would be a recipe for disaster"
-- Franco

It sure sounds to me like you're saying that the more Hispanics come into America, the more Dem votes there will be for Dem programs that you believe will be "disastrous." And therefore, the only way to keep the Dems from getting all these new Hispanic votes is to stop them from becoming citizens.

Have I misinterpreted your statement? Did you intend these words to mean something else?

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:56:34 +0000

Look simple sinz, you are starting to annoy me. I'm really starting to wonder about your mental ability. You can write and you know a modicum of history but you are thick in the head. (Oh my god he called me a name, oh my!) Yes, you deserve it and more. because you are full of falsehoods and lies and I won't stand for it.

"The policy that would be most consistent with "treating everyone as individuals" would be to lift all immigration quotas, and let anyone who wants to come here, come here--whether from Korea or Mexico or the planet Vulcan--just so long as they swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of their ethnicity or economic class status."

Er, we share a border with Mexico. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come from there, roughly 20 million. It is changing our culture. No country in the world country has a policy of rapid voluntary cultural change. Furthermore, for your edification please look up how to emigrate to Mexico, or for that matter any other country in the world. They will not consider you if you don't have wealth or means. Forget it. Why? Because they are not stupid they realize that they are making things harder for their existing citizens if they let in too many people who are poor. And they will not take you if you can't prove you are disease-free have a job or means and will not rely on whatever social services the government provides. Essentially they only want to let in people who they think will help their country. Are they nativist? Cynical?

"You're the one who's not treating everyone as individuals. You're trying to keep poor individuals out of the country, because you're afraid they won't vote for your candidates."

By calling a group of people "individuals" and making the case for them as a group is a hoot. You can't get out of your own little box, can you?

The first duty of any government is to protect the country. this means it can't just let anyone in. There are diseases there are criminals, there are freeloaders. Now of course we can always predict what the simpleminded dolts will do this with that argument, see if you can follow me here: Someone like me says, we can't just let anyone in, there are freeloaders and criminals and diseases etc. and they are coming over the southern border.The leftists says "Oh you think all Mexicans have diseases and are criminal freeloaders, I see.."

sinz actually wrote"So you believe that the key to future GOP victories is to keep immigrants out."

This is another false charge. Can't you keep to logic and not your fantasies? You are a simpleton. And a liar.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:33:08 +0000

Franco: On the one hand, you say you want to treat everyone as an individual, not as a member of an ethnicity.

On the other hand, you want to enforce the immigration laws and quotas, NOT to keep Koreans or Russians or even Spaniards from immigrating to America, but specifically to keep Latin Americans from immigrating to America. (Because you're afraid they won't vote Republican.)

Isn't that a contradiction?

The policy that would be most consistent with "treating everyone as individuals" would be to lift all immigration quotas, and let anyone who wants to come here, come here--whether from Korea or Mexico or the planet Vulcan--just so long as they swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of their ethnicity or economic class status.

You're the one who's not treating everyone as individuals. You're trying to keep poor individuals out of the country, because you're afraid they won't vote for your candidates. That's not racialist. But it's cynical.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:16:01 +0000

Franco: "They [Hispanic immigrants] are poorer and less integrated into society and less educated (sorry but less educated poor people lean Democrat overwhelmingly)....This would be a recipe for disaster"

So you believe that the key to future GOP victories is to keep immigrants out. That's pretty cynical and un-American, given that so much of this country was built by poor immigrants coming to America to find work and opportunity. Go read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty sometime.

But the main problem with your "solution" is that it's unworkable.

The fastest-growing voting bloc in America today is Hispanics, even without illegal immigration. And the Pew Survey last year found that white married Protestants are now down to only 51% of Americans--and before this decade is out, white married Protestants are going to be a minority in their own country. If the GOP can't appeal strongly to any other groups except white married Protestants, it will never win the White House again.

It is projected that by the year 2040 or so, white people are going to be down to a minority in America. America will be truly multi-racial. What will the GOP do then? Accommodate itself to being a splinter party of southern white Baptists?

It's not impossible for the GOP to reach out to ethnicities it didn't win before. Perhaps you forget that in 1960, Nixon won 40% of the black vote against JFK. In 1968, Nixon reached out to Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans who previously had voted staunchly Democrat. Reagan continued this, and won 40% of the Jewish vote too. Bush 43 won 44% of the Hispanic vote.

Now just suppose that those successes had continued rather than been thrown away by such as yourself. Suppose that today, a GOP candidate for President could count of 40% of the Black vote, 44% of the Hispanic vote, 40% of the Jewish vote--without losing the urban ethnics like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans. Combined with the GOP's traditional appeal to white Protestants, that would have given the GOP a *permanent* lock on the White House that the Dems could not break--except in exceptional circumstances like impeachment or something.

It wouldn't have taken a true majority of blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, to give the GOP a lock on the White House. Just respectable percentages, as past GOP candidates did.

If the GOP can only win elections if young people don't vote, Hispanics don't vote, and single women don't vote, that's a pretty pathetic party, in my view.

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:12:49 +0000

First being an hispanic is not a race. If you believe it is a race then THAT is racist. Are Italians a race too? How about Morroccans? French? Latvian? Are they races?

You don't say which shows you listern to but if you want to hear racism then it's easy to divine for overly sensitive types.

The more I am called a racist the more radical I become perhaps that is the plan of the left to antagonize endlessly to CREATE racism where there was none. They WANT racism, they THRIVE on it! I will not tolerate it anymore these false charges and they are actually the racists.

If you identify yourself as a separate race speak a different language and refuse to integrate and march on behalf of group rights"or for the "reconquista" YOU are the racist, not me. La Raza is clearly a racist organization. I just want one country and one race - human.

The whole idea of America is individual rights, not group rights.
I will also not tolerate a group trying to hijack their own victim status on the backs of blacks who had and still have, a legitimate issue. Illegal Hispanics came here on their own free will. They aren't held captive here. So I don't want to hear complaints in that regard.

So you don't see what will happen if there is amnestia but then you are a Democrat, isn't that correct?

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:16:17 +0000

" You don't listen to talk radio obviously and you are just making this stuff up. You don't listen to talk radio obviously and you are just making this stuff up."

Nope - tune in relatively regularly, when I'm driving aroiund during the day.

"fact that you believe that the amnesty debate is just another issue like spending or ports or a SCOTUS pick you are ignoring the ramifications of the amnesty bill."

Actually, I think spending and a Supreme Court pick are far more important than the amnesty bill ... but if you'll recall, my original post was focussed on immigration - you're the one who brought up the other topics.

"And you are ignorant of talk radio when it comes to the amnesty debate as well that there was some kind of negative reaction on the part of Hispanics other than made up propaganda for the ignorant peasants to feed from."

This is not a point. It is a rant.

"there was no racism or racially charged comments that I heard and I KNOW I listen to more talk radio than you."

I have no doubt of that - but we also probably listen through different ears. And as someone who grew up in San Antonio going to Catholic schools with hispanics, who has a hispanic brother-in-law, and who is married to a woman who was born and raised in Mexico, I'm telling you that I heard plenty of comments that were outright racist.

Not all, as I said - there were many who also framed their arguments based on rule of law. And I also know many pro-labor liberals who oppose uncontrolled immigration. In general the latter tend to focus their attacks not on the illegal immigrants who they see as naturally responding to an economic demand, but on their employers.

I am still amused, but not shocked, that you don't recall hearing anything you'd have considered racist coming from right wing talk show hosts, not to mention some of their most boorish callers, during that time. Unfortunately, it was almost inevitable considering the tone that these shows have cultivated ... they have become theater, and part of the theater is racheting up the insults to whoever they disagree with.

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:39:13 +0000

balconesfault You don't listen to talk radio obviously and you are just making this stuff up. Harriet Miers was a huge issue. Rush defended Bush on Dubai Ports but most others attacked the idea, but these issues pale in comparison to the amnesty issue and the fact that you believe that the amnesty debate is just another issue like spending or ports or a SCOTUS pick you are ignoring the ramifications of the amnesty bill.
And you are ignorant of talk radio when it comes to the amnesty debate as well that there was some kind of negative reaction on the part of Hispanics other than made up propaganda for the ignorant peasants to feed from. You can't stop Democrats (and you are one aren't you?)from lying, fabricating, distorting and propagandizing. It's even worked on you and you don't even realize it. In fact most voting Hispanics were against the bill. AND there was no racism or racially charged comments that I heard and I KNOW I listen to more talk radio than you. So stop referring to things about which you know nothing.

Lastly it is precisely because of operations like La Raza and other racially defensive groups that smart Americans will reject amnesty in any form. I am not going to put up with people who import themselves into my country-Yes, MY country - illegally, and then call me a racist. No way baby.

I'm for orderly legal immigration and the level of disingenuousness from the pro amnesty side is alarming and makes me dig my heels in even more. They constantly truncate the debate to be about "immigration" or "anti-immigration" when it is NOT about immigration but illegal immigration. And then they have the nerve to label people as xenophobic or nativist or racist.