# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  The Purpose of Welfare

## Oskar

Welfare is a hot button political topic. Rife with abuse, having given rise to the term "welfare state", and probably unconstitutional, it is always being renewed, repackaged, and reformed.

Stories abound of welfare recipients taking their SNAP cards to the store and walking out with soda, potato chips, and steak. 

Generations of Democratic politicians have won election by promising to put more people on the "dole", and dependence on government is one of the major objectives of the far left. Without more "services" being paid for by confiscated money (taxes) what reason would government bureaucracy have to exist? 

Formerly, carrying "food stamps" into a store carried a stigma. People felt shame in having to receive government aid and they worked hard to get off of the welfare rolls. Today, welfare and food stamps have lost their negative image by being renamed TANF and SNAP. People carry debit cards loaded with their benefits rather than waiting for a check to come in the mail. There is little to no difference between these cards and regular debit cards, and when the direct deposits come in, welfare recipients call it "getting paid."

Welfare reform was a hallmark of the Clinton Administration (but only after he was forced to implement it after the 1994 midterm elections gave Republicans a powerful counterweight in Congress). It supposedly is harder to cheat the system, but it happens anyway, because Dems can count votes with the best of them and welfare recipients (many of whom are black) have rewarded them by reliably pulling the D lever.

Democrats revile Republicans who want to reform welfare as "heartless", yet compare the two strategies. A Democrat defines success as how many people no longer need welfare while Democrats define it by how many people are getting a handout. Put another way, Republicans understand that if you teach a man how to fish he will never go hungry while Dems want someone else to fish and then will take that fish and give it to people who don't fish in exchange for votes.

Cynicism (or is it truth) aside, there is also the question of constitutionality. James Madison wrote "I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon the article of the constitution that granted a right to Congress of expending upon objects of benevolence, the money of its constituents."

Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution" so his words carry some weight. I think that welfare is unconstitutional, but it is not going away anytime soon, so it is best to identity a clear and limited purpose for it and keep its implementation within those bounds.

The purpose of welfare is to provide temporary aid to struggling families or individuals. It is meant to provide the basic necessities of life until the family and individual is capable of providing for themselves. It ought to have an expiration date and be administered tightly with an eye out for abuse and contain a system that not only encourages but actively requires an honest attempt to secure stable employment. This would include vocational training and development of interviewing skills. A drug testing program should be mandatory for anyone receiving federal aid (and I would advocate for this at the state level also).

What is your idea of the purpose of welfare and food stamps? How should it be implemented and what limitations (if any) would you place upon it (for instance, not allowing SNAP cards to be used to buy soda, chips, steaks, or shrimp platters)?

----------

DeadEye (10-22-2017),Deno (10-22-2017),Libhater (10-22-2017),NORAD (10-24-2017),Old Ridge Runner (10-22-2017)

----------


## Karl

> Welfare is a hot button political topic. Rife with abuse, having given rise to the term "welfare state", and probably unconstitutional, it is always being renewed, repackaged, and reformed.
> 
> Stories abound of welfare recipients taking their SNAP cards to the store and walking out with soda, potato chips, and steak. 
> 
> Generations of Democratic politicians have won election by promising to put more people on the "dole", and dependence on government is one of the major objectives of the far left. Without more "services" being paid for by confiscated money (taxes) what reason would government bureaucracy have to exist? 
> 
> Formerly, carrying "food stamps" into a store carried a stigma. People felt shame in having to receive government aid and they worked hard to get off of the welfare rolls. Today, welfare and food stamps have lost their negative image by being renamed TANF and SNAP. People carry debit cards loaded with their benefits rather than waiting for a check to come in the mail. There is little to no difference between these cards and regular debit cards, and when the direct deposits come in, welfare recipients call it "getting paid."
> 
> Welfare reform was a hallmark of the Clinton Administration (but only after he was forced to implement it after the 1994 midterm elections gave Republicans a powerful counterweight in Congress). It supposedly is harder to cheat the system, but it happens anyway, because Dems can count votes with the best of them and welfare recipients (many of whom are black) have rewarded them by reliably pulling the D lever.
> ...



The purpose of welfare is that I got 7 kids wit just as many "Baby" MaMas...

Im a freaking FAILURE yet you the TAXPAYERS are gonna feed my Kids and 6 or 7 Baby Mamas..

We gonna drive our CADILLAC to the SOUP KITCHEN too

----------

DeadEye (10-22-2017),Old Ridge Runner (10-22-2017),Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## GreenEyedLady



----------

Big Dummy (10-22-2017),MedicineBow (10-22-2017),MrogersNhood (10-25-2017),NORAD (10-24-2017),Old Ridge Runner (10-22-2017),Rickity Plumber (10-22-2017),S-N-A-F-U (10-23-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

The purpose of welfare is to take care of people.  For instance my right wing brother lost his ability to work at 62 so he was on welfare a short while.  Mad now that he makes to much for Medicaid working at Walmart contractor selling phones.  Some of his claims are quite wild.  He says he got kicked out of his mothers house at 13 for instance.  He didn't.  I wasn't living with my mother I was raised by my grandparents.  He made the mistake of taking social security at 62 as well.  I waited till 66.  I guess he believed the lies about social security going broke.  

When I lived in Albuquerque just about all my neighbors were on welfare.  My wife and I were not as she was working at a low paying non-union child care center.  I was working for the air force teaching micro computers through MWR on contract and contracting to a lot of local lawyers as well.  Anyhow I've seen a lot about welfare.

I can agree a lot of social workers are interested in expanding their case load.  However, I think what Clinton did was very short sighted.  It resulted in a lot of people moving to social security disability.  This was particularly true of people over 40.  Most of them were white, not that it maters.  a lot owned homes and good cars.  But either in the run up to the 2008 great recession or during it their jobs vanished.  Particularly as they turn 50+ they are reasonably unemployable.  They will be on welfare or disability till they go on social security.  Most of these people put in a number of years of hard work.  Many expected pensions that they had taken from them by the same managers who gave themselves golden parachutes.  These make up a significant percent of the current welfare recipients.  

Business doesn't want them because they are to old to make training profitable.  Many have chronic silliness that would balloon the businesses health insurance costs.  If they are lucky they, like my brother, can get a job at a small fraction of what they used to make, usually with no benefits.  If a pension is lost golden parachutes should be taxed enough to make it whole.  That is a contract between the company and the worker and should come before all other debt.  But in many cases that will be to little in that case they should receive benefits until social security cuts in that are about equal to what they were making.  Companies that do not provide pensions but do provide golden parachutes should have to pay an equal amount to a fund to take care of the people I just described.

Another group are the intellectually challenged or put another way the dumb and uncoordinated.  Business doesn't want them either so they maybe unemployable for life.  In some case the government could send them to school and change their lives.  In other cases it is better to take care of them for life then let them starve.  

A third group and I would say this is the largest are the working poor.  These people are the gardners, fry cooks, babysitters and minimum wage workers.  Government needs to subsidize their wages.  They need to be provided with something like Medicare for all.  They need to be provided with enough educational assistance to better themselves without going heavily into debt.

OK there is a 4th group these are the under the table workers who often make good money but with the connivance of their employer don't report it.  Most are US citizens.  We should crack down on the employers because that is where the real money is and without the employers connivance it can't be done.

----------


## Fly Paper

A welfare state is a one where everyone is cared for and looked after. If you fall on hard times, need medical assistance etc.. But the problem is, why work if you get to know the system and live off the benefits? Why look after your body if the NHS is there?

Welfare works on paper and if no one cheats or lies. So welfare is where the honest and well paid taxpayer funds a system where many dishonest lazy twats take advantage of.

You need a pay-as-you-go system. You can't get out more than you've paid in so if you need benefit money, it comes out the funds you paid in. Once it's gone, benefits stop.

----------


## Libhater

The fact is that any and all forms of the welfare state are un-constitutional, and that would also include the disastrous obamacare and HUD. Leftists are so out of touch with the law and with our constitution that they say these freebies are their 'rights'. Rights my ass. So long as their big daddy socialist government keeps handing out the goods at the working man's tax expense, why not keep traveling down that cradle to grave lifestyle? Fucking leeches them all.

----------

Big Dummy (10-22-2017),Deno (10-22-2017),MrogersNhood (10-25-2017),Rickity Plumber (10-22-2017),S-N-A-F-U (10-23-2017)

----------


## Frankenvoter

> The purpose of welfare is to take care of people.  For instance my right wing brother lost his ability to work at 62 so he was on welfare a short while.  Mad now that he makes to much for Medicaid working at Walmart contractor selling phones.  Some of his claims are quite wild.  He says he got kicked out of his mothers house at 13 for instance.  He didn't.  I wasn't living with my mother I was raised by my grandparents.  He made the mistake of taking social security at 62 as well.  I waited till 66.  I guess he believed the lies about social security going broke.  
> 
> When I lived in Albuquerque just about all my neighbors were on welfare.  My wife and I were not as she was working at a low paying non-union child care center.  I was working for the air force teaching micro computers through MWR on contract and contracting to a lot of local lawyers as well.  Anyhow I've seen a lot about welfare.
> 
> I can agree a lot of social workers are interested in expanding their case load.  However, I think what Clinton did was very short sighted.  It resulted in a lot of people moving to social security disability.  This was particularly true of people over 40.  Most of them were white, not that it maters.  a lot owned homes and good cars.  But either in the run up to the 2008 great recession or during it their jobs vanished.  Particularly as they turn 50+ they are reasonably unemployable.  They will be on welfare or disability till they go on social security.  Most of these people put in a number of years of hard work.  Many expected pensions that they had taken from them by the same managers who gave themselves golden parachutes.  These make up a significant percent of the current welfare recipients.  
> 
> Business doesn't want them because they are to old to make training profitable.  Many have chronic silliness that would balloon the businesses health insurance costs.  If they are lucky they, like my brother, can get a job at a small fraction of what they used to make, usually with no benefits.  If a pension is lost golden parachutes should be taxed enough to make it whole.  That is a contract between the company and the worker and should come before all other debt.  But in many cases that will be to little in that case they should receive benefits until social security cuts in that are about equal to what they were making.  Companies that do not provide pensions but do provide golden parachutes should have to pay an equal amount to a fund to take care of the people I just described.
> 
> Another group are the intellectually challenged or put another way the dumb and uncoordinated.  Business doesn't want them either so they maybe unemployable for life.  In some case the government could send them to school and change their lives.  In other cases it is better to take care of them for life then let them starve.  
> ...


Welfare should be a G-string, not a hammock. In other words, just barely covering, and incentivizing to get a little coverage for yourself.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (10-22-2017),Deno (10-22-2017),S-N-A-F-U (10-23-2017)

----------


## Deno

> The purpose of welfare is to take care of people.  For instance my right wing brother lost his ability to work at 62 so he was on welfare a short while.  Mad now that he makes to much for Medicaid working at Walmart contractor selling phones.  Some of his claims are quite wild.  He says he got kicked out of his mothers house at 13 for instance.  He didn't.  I wasn't living with my mother I was raised by my grandparents.  He made the mistake of taking social security at 62 as well.  I waited till 66.  I guess he believed the lies about social security going broke.  
> 
> When I lived in Albuquerque just about all my neighbors were on welfare.  My wife and I were not as she was working at a low paying non-union child care center.  I was working for the air force teaching micro computers through MWR on contract and contracting to a lot of local lawyers as well.  Anyhow I've seen a lot about welfare.
> 
> I can agree a lot of social workers are interested in expanding their case load.  However, I think what Clinton did was very short sighted.  It resulted in a lot of people moving to social security disability.  This was particularly true of people over 40.  Most of them were white, not that it maters.  a lot owned homes and good cars.  But either in the run up to the 2008 great recession or during it their jobs vanished.  Particularly as they turn 50+ they are reasonably unemployable.  They will be on welfare or disability till they go on social security.  Most of these people put in a number of years of hard work.  Many expected pensions that they had taken from them by the same managers who gave themselves golden parachutes.  These make up a significant percent of the current welfare recipients.  
> 
> Business doesn't want them because they are to old to make training profitable.  Many have chronic silliness that would balloon the businesses health insurance costs.  If they are lucky they, like my brother, can get a job at a small fraction of what they used to make, usually with no benefits.  If a pension is lost golden parachutes should be taxed enough to make it whole.  That is a contract between the company and the worker and should come before all other debt.  But in many cases that will be to little in that case they should receive benefits until social security cuts in that are about equal to what they were making.  Companies that do not provide pensions but do provide golden parachutes should have to pay an equal amount to a fund to take care of the people I just described.
> 
> Another group are the intellectually challenged or put another way the dumb and uncoordinated.  Business doesn't want them either so they maybe unemployable for life.  In some case the government could send them to school and change their lives.  In other cases it is better to take care of them for life then let them starve.  
> ...




Chronic silliness and the intellectually challenged along 

with the dumb and uncoordinated..............

Your words not mine.....

You have described the left wing base to a tee...

They should all have to take a drug test to get paid.

We all know drugs are the only thing you left out that

could explain someone being a leftie.

----------

Big Dummy (10-22-2017)

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

And I thought welfare was for giving our citizens a handup, not a handout.  I was wrong on both accounts.  Instead, it was instigated by the democrats as a reward to bolster sagging numbers  to their party,  along with open borders for illegals that were found to be ideal democrats that came here for a handout with a promise of more of the same.  That's what happens when we elect democrats that are as dumb as the ones who support them....

----------

Conservative Libertarian (10-22-2017),Libhater (10-22-2017),MrogersNhood (10-25-2017),Rickity Plumber (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> And I thought welfare was for giving our citizens a handup, not a handout.  I was wrong on both accounts.  Instead, it was instigated by the democrats as a reward to bolster sagging numbers  to their party,  along with open borders for illegals that were found to be ideal democrats that came here for a handout with a promise of more of the same.  That's what happens when we elect democrats that are as dumb as the ones who support them....


Even the head of ICE says people come for jobs not handouts.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> A welfare state is a one where everyone is cared for and looked after. If you fall on hard times, need medical assistance etc.. But the problem is, why work if you get to know the system and live off the benefits? Why look after your body if the NHS is there?
> 
> Welfare works on paper and if no one cheats or lies. So welfare is where the honest and well paid taxpayer funds a system where many dishonest lazy twats take advantage of.
> 
> You need a pay-as-you-go system. You can't get out more than you've paid in so if you need benefit money, it comes out the funds you paid in. Once it's gone, benefits stop.


A lot of people like work because it improves their self image.  Few like just sitting around and doing nothing.  People are not basically lazy.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Welfare should be a G-string, not a hammock. In other words, just barely covering, and incentivizing to get a little coverage for yourself.


To use your words welfare should be a hammock.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> The purpose of welfare is that I got 7 kids wit just as many "Baby" MaMas...
> 
> Im a freaking FAILURE yet you the TAXPAYERS are gonna feed my Kids and 6 or 7 Baby Mamas..
> 
> We gonna drive our CADILLAC to the SOUP KITCHEN too


Try being serious @Karl.  This is a serious philosophical thread.  The almost myth of the multi-child welfare parent is one of the problems.

The real issue is what is the purpose of welfare and what should the work ethic be.  This is a major difference between the left and the right.

----------


## Rutabaga

> To use your words welfare should be a hammock.


and ssi claims from people who "have ptsd from being forced to listen to what they call hate speech" or because they claim to be too overweight to work,,,whats your solution to remove cheats from the welfare rolls?

----------

MrogersNhood (10-25-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Try being serious @Karl.  This is a serious philosophical thread.  The almost myth of the multi-child welfare parent is one of the problems.
> 
> The real issue is what is the purpose of welfare and what should the work ethic be.  This is a major difference between the left and the right.


welfare payments INCREASE with more children...for decades the welfare recipients COULD NOT receive any money if the father lived with his children...
this is partially WHY in the black welfare communities so few fathers are in the picture...

----------

Jim Scott (10-25-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Even the head of ICE says people come for jobs not handouts.


What people? Illegal aliens? They are stealing those jobs from working Americans.

----------

Madison (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> This is a serious philosophical thread.  .


It is? Thanks! That never occurred to me.

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> The real issue is what is the purpose of welfare and what should the work ethic be.  This is a major difference between the left and the right.


Among the left, "welfare" and "work ethic" never appear together. 

If you think they do, then maybe you really do agree with me; that welfare should be _temporary_ assistance until someone can get back on their feet.

----------

Madison (10-22-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> welfare payments INCREASE with more children...for decades the welfare recipients COULD NOT receive any money if the father lived with his children...
> this is partially WHY in the black welfare communities so few fathers are in the picture...


Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty destroyed the black family.

----------

Deno (10-26-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> and ssi claims from people who "have ptsd from being forced to listen to what they call hate speech" or because they claim to be too overweight to work,,,whats your solution to remove cheats from the welfare rolls?


If I was going to commit federal aid fraud, even as a thief I would be too ashamed to pull those stunts.

I'd rather fill out a bogus Small Business Administration loan application.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty destroyed the black family.


yep,,,they were doing better before the handouts...

----------

Deno (10-26-2017)

----------


## Madison

Welfare! Oh boy. It`s almost impossible not finding a job in North America. You can work on farms; you can work in shops; you can work in stores; you can work in restaurants

Weird but I always found work my whole life!

I think welfare is fine for people with real disabilities ( those who really have serious problems)

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## RGV

Something to think about.
Maybe welfare should be proportional to income for that state. For example someone in Mississippi would not get as much as someone from California. Not only do the poor states not pay into the system, but have more in "poverty" and are less likely to find a job that pays more. Not good for income inequality, but hey.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Something to think about.
> Maybe welfare should be proportional to income for that state. For example someone in Mississippi would not get as much as someone from California. Not only do the poor states not pay into the system, but have more in "poverty" and are less likely to find a job that pays more. Not good for income inequality, but hey.


i believe thats how its calculated already..by state..

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## RGV

> i believe thats how its calculated already..by state..


Maybe. So you think some states just have a lot more poor people? Wonder why that is.

----------


## Oskar

> Something to think about.
> Maybe welfare should be proportional to income for that state. For example someone in Mississippi would not get as much as someone from California. Not only do the poor states not pay into the system, but have more in "poverty" and are less likely to find a job that pays more. Not good for income inequality, but hey.


So, you want to discriminate against blacks in favor of Hispanics?

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Maybe. So you think some states just have a lot more poor people? Wonder why that is.


Usually it has to do with the economic base in that state. Technology and manufacturing is going to win over agriculture and service sectors. 

When the economic drivers are relatively equal, the poorer areas will be easy to identify. They will be run by Democrats.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> and ssi claims from people who "have ptsd from being forced to listen to what they call hate speech" or because they claim to be too overweight to work,,,whats your solution to remove cheats from the welfare rolls?


Removing them from the welfare roles, removing them from social security and putting them on welfare is.  There can be people to overweight to eat.  For a few that is a physical malady for most it is a mental illness.  PTSD is real to though I doubt you can get it from hate speech.

----------


## RGV

> So, you want to discriminate against blacks in favor of Hispanics?


Nope. It's just that some states get a higher proportion of their income from the feds than others. I'm guessing that means they have a lot more poor people getting those bennies. Just trying to understand why.
Maybe poor education, more lazy people, lousy jobs. I don't know.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> welfare payments INCREASE with more children...for decades the welfare recipients COULD NOT receive any money if the father lived with his children...
> this is partially WHY in the black welfare communities so few fathers are in the picture...


I am aware that back in the 60's and before the mistake was made of breaking up families.  Fortunately we have no stopped that.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Maybe. So you think some states just have a lot more poor people? Wonder why that is.


like chicago, detroit, st.louis, baltimore, dc, etc.?

welfare attracts welfare abusers...if there's less free shit, the flies move on to more fertile pickings...

----------



----------


## RobertLafollet

> What people? Illegal aliens? They are stealing those jobs from working Americans.


Some people working under the table are undocumented others are US citizens.  Most are US citizens in my experience.  I report my income but I've had people I work for say we don't send out 1099's it is to much trouble.  That means if I didn't want to play it safe and justify my write offs with income I wouldn't have to report that income.  However, I am well aware if the IRS catches you, you can easily get 5 years in jail.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I am aware that back in the 60's and before the mistake was made of breaking up families.  Fortunately we have no stopped that.


wasn't just the 60s bob...entire generations were spawned dependant on welfare...most still are to this day...

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Among the left, "welfare" and "work ethic" never appear together. 
> 
> If you think they do, then maybe you really do agree with me; that welfare should be _temporary_ assistance until someone can get back on their feet.


Nope I disagree.  However, I also disagree with you on the affects of automation.  Robotics is and will increasing reduce the number of jobs available.  Doesn't mater that this didn't happen in the past.  It is and will happen in the future.  Population doesn't look like it is going down.  Society doesn't really have a stake in seeing a decling population.

----------


## Rutabaga

> *Removing them from the welfare roles, removing them from social security and putting them on welfare is*.  There can be people to overweight to eat.  For a few that is a physical malady for most it is a mental illness.  PTSD is real to though I doubt you can get it from hate speech.


to the bold,,,that makes no sense, please elaborate...

"there can be people too overweight to eat."
hmmm...sounds like a self correcting malady...

ptsd is real,,but many use it as a blanket excuse for being lazy..

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty destroyed the black family.


I disagree with this to.  What destroyed the black family was was the old fashioned idea of no fathers in the house.  It wasn't very good for white families either.  Then there is the Republican welfare reform that Clinton signed which sure hasn't helped families.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Nope I disagree.  However, I also disagree with you on the affects of automation.  Robotics is and will increasing reduce the number of jobs available.  Doesn't mater that this didn't happen in the past.  It is and will happen in the future.  Population doesn't look like it is going down.  Society doesn't really have a stake in seeing a decling population.


you attempt to redirect entirely away from the post you replied to...

you do that often...and its annoying...

----------

Kodiak (10-22-2017),NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Kodiak

> you attempt to redirect entirely away from the post you replied to...
> 
> you do that often...and its annoying...


Dodge and deflect, it's what liberals/socialists/communists do best.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Nope. It's just that some states get a higher proportion of their income from the feds than others. I'm guessing that means they have a lot more poor people getting those bennies. Just trying to understand why.
> Maybe poor education, more lazy people, lousy jobs. I don't know.


But you specifically cited California (majority Hispanic) as a state that should get more aid over Mississippi (large black population).

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> you attempt to redirect entirely away from the post you replied to...
> 
> you do that often...and its annoying...


Standard operating procedure.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I disagree with this to.  What destroyed the black family was was the old fashioned idea of no fathers in the house.  It wasn't very good for white families either.  Then there is the Republican welfare reform that Clinton signed which sure hasn't helped families.


and who started and implemented the "no fathers in the house" rule bob?


"old fashioned" LOL!

so its "old fashioned" to think fathers should not be in the house?

what a crock of malarkey you just tried...

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> However, I also disagree with you on the affects of automation.


How do you know? Where did I mention automation? Hallucinating, Bob?

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> and who started and implemented the "no fathers in the house" rule bob?
> 
> 
> "old fashioned" LOL!
> 
> so its "old fashioned" to think fathers should not be in the house?
> 
> what a crock of malarkey you just tried...


I had to process his post for about five minutes before I realized  :Wtf20:  
No more Bob comedy for me tonight.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Standard operating procedure.


its a habit progs have of trying to redirect to something they are more comfortable with instead of addressing the post they replied to...

while i expect it,,i dont allow it...

----------



----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> How do you know? Where did I mention automation? Hallucinating, Bob?


A few days ago, he did post that california had the best weed in the nation.

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> What destroyed the black family was was the old fashioned idea of no fathers in the house.


You are a bit muddled here in your language. Are you saying that a societal change occurred where fathers abdicated their authority in favor of mothers?

That happened. It is a direct result of feminism.

 Guess who was the ball carrier of feminism.

Democrats.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> A few days ago, he did post that california had the best weed in the nation.


I live here and wouldn't know. He must have first-hand experience.

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> You are a bit muddled here in your language. Are you saying that a societal change occurred where fathers abdicated their authority in favor of mothers?
> 
> That happened. It is a direct result of feminism.
> 
>  Guess who was the ball carrier of feminism.
> 
> Democrats.


They didn't take a knee like those other ball carriers.

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Welfare! Oh boy. It`s almost impossible not finding a job in North America. You can work on farms; you can work in shops; you can work in stores; you can work in restaurants
> 
> Weird but I always found work my whole life!
> 
> I think welfare is fine for people with real disabilities ( those who really have serious problems)


If you live in the right places that is probably true.  But because of low wages some jobs are no longer profitable.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to take a job that pays $7.50 an hour if you have a kid in child care at $7.00 an hour.  Two kids and you are really losing money.  Things like the earned income tax credit don't help much because they are paid once a year.  You can't make less then your expenses for 11 months of the year and then get a small rebate and live.

Now add on the cost of transportation, washing, eating out, and housing and expenses greatly exceed income.

Let them eat cake which seems to be a common right wing idea only creates revolution.  

Something needs to be done about business that pay at rates that require welfare for their employees to survive.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Something to think about.
> Maybe welfare should be proportional to income for that state. For example someone in Mississippi would not get as much as someone from California. Not only do the poor states not pay into the system, but have more in "poverty" and are less likely to find a job that pays more. Not good for income inequality, but hey.


More people are on welfare, but get lower benefits then richer states but people in richer states get higher benefits.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You are a bit muddled here in your language. Are you saying that a societal change occurred where fathers abdicated their authority in favor of mothers?
> 
> *That happened. It is a direct result of feminism.
> 
> * Guess who was the ball carrier of feminism.
> 
> Democrats.


yes,,that was when the democrats abandoned the working middle class in favor of special interest groups and identity politics...

i watched it happen...

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Usually it has to do with the economic base in that state. Technology and manufacturing is going to win over agriculture and service sectors. 
> 
> When the economic drivers are relatively equal, the poorer areas will be easy to identify. They will be run by Democrats.


Right now the poorer areas are usually run by Republicans and the richer by Democrats.

----------


## Oskar

> Nope I disagree.


Ok, lets clarify with what you are disagreeing. You don't think that welfare should be temporary. 

When should it end?

----------


## Oskar

> Right now the poorer areas are usually run by Republicans and the richer by Democrats.


Mind providing some statistics that demonstrate this is true so that if it is the data can be put into context?

----------


## RGV

> like chicago, detroit, st.louis, baltimore, dc, etc.?
> 
> welfare attracts welfare abusers...if there's less free shit, the flies move on to more fertile pickings...


I was thinking more of the South. But I guess it could be the same, just more wide spread.
wel.png

----------


## Rutabaga

> If you live in the right places that is probably true.  But because of low wages some jobs are no longer profitable.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to take a job that pays $7.50 an hour if you have a kid in child care at $7.00 an hour.  Two kids and you are really losing money.  Things like the earned income tax credit don't help much because they are paid once a year.  You can't make less then your expenses for 11 months of the year and then get a small rebate and live.
> 
> Now add on the cost of transportation, washing, eating out, and housing and expenses greatly exceed income.
> 
> Let them eat cake which seems to be a common right wing idea only creates revolution.  
> 
> Something needs to be done about business that pay at rates that require welfare for their employees to survive.


dont have kids if you cant afford them, dont eat out if you cant afford to feed the kids you cant afford, wash at home if you cant afford to eat out or feed the kids you cant afford.

personal responsibility is lost on parasites of all species...

----------

Madison (10-22-2017),NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Nope. It's just that some states get a higher proportion of their income from the feds than others. I'm guessing that means they have a lot more poor people getting those bennies. Just trying to understand why.
> Maybe poor education, more lazy people, lousy jobs. I don't know.


Most of them are non-union right to work states, run by Republicans.  They usually have the lowest minimum wages.

----------


## RGV

Duplicate

----------


## Rutabaga

> Right now the poorer areas are usually run by Republicans and the richer by Democrats.


nonsense bob,,,always nonsense...

----------


## Oskar

> More people are on welfare.


Earlier you characterized this thread as a serious philosophical debate. I consider more people on welfare to be a bad thing, because it encourages a culture of dependence and promotes non-productivity.

Do you see an increase in the welfare rolls as good or bad, and why?

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Most of them are non-union right to work states, run by Republicans.  They usually have the lowest minimum wages.


Do you believe there is a right to work?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> like chicago, detroit, st.louis, baltimore, dc, etc.?
> 
> welfare attracts welfare abusers...if there's less free shit, the flies move on to more fertile pickings...


What attracted people to those cities was jobs that have been exported because of free trade or lost because of automation.  Now those people have roots in those areas that make it hard to move.  In addition it is expensive to move to where the jobs are.  Many people just don't have the money to do it.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I was thinking more about the South, but I guess it could be the same.
> 
> Attachment 25236


when your pretty picture is enlarged,,it doesn't explain anything that correlates to the numbers or colors...

let me see if i can enlarge it and post it..

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> dont have kids if you cant afford them.


Democrats put free condoms in public schools and want mandatory coverage of contraceptives, yet they think it is a virtue for their beloved minorities to spread their legs and pump out babies that they can't afford and use white tax dollars to pay for their upkeep.

----------

Madison (10-22-2017)

----------


## Madison

Pathetic parasites.

Before to plan a family you have to get a job, get a decent place to live, do a budget, follow the budget ...don`t get a kid if you can`t affort to feed, dress, educate, school etc ...etc...

BTW...there is a pill and condoms if you can`t plan a family
condoms will help from diseases as well!

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Most of them are non-union right to work states, run by Republicans.  They usually have the lowest minimum wages.


more nonsense bob,,,

----------


## RobertLafollet

> and who started and implemented the "no fathers in the house" rule bob?
> 
> 
> "old fashioned" LOL!
> 
> so its "old fashioned" to think fathers should not be in the house?
> 
> what a crock of malarkey you just tried...


Where did I say fathers shouldn't be in the house?  I intended to say the opposite.  The idea that having an able bodied man in the house disqualifies one for welfare is a bad idea.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Pathetic parasites.
> 
> Before to plan a family you have to get a job, get a decent place to live, do a budget, follow the budget ...don`t get a kid if you can`t affort to feed, dress, educate, school etc ...etc...
> 
> BTW...there is a pill and condoms if you can`t plan a family
> condoms will help from diseases as well!


A lot of people on welfare were doing very well in 2008 and haven't been able to over come the Bush Great Recession.

----------


## Rutabaga

> What attracted people to those cities was jobs that have been exported because of free trade or lost because of automation.  Now those people have roots in those areas that make it hard to move.  In addition it is expensive to move to where the jobs are.  Many people just don't have the money to do it.


the unions drove the auto makers from detroit, the steel mills from pittsburgh, bob...not automation...

if you are starving where you live you move to an area you can correct that..its not rocket science bob...

----------


## Rutabaga

> A lot of people on welfare were doing very well in 2008 and haven't been able to over come the Bush Great Recession.


10 years later they still haven't figured it out?

maybe because with the generous welfare they have no incentive to do so...

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> when your pretty picture is enlarged,,it doesn't explain anything that correlates to the numbers or colors...
> 
> let me see if i can enlarge it and post it..


It doesn't breakdown the type of federal funding. 

Maybe in the South it is the DOJ putting their nose where it doesn't belong investigating non-existent "civil rights" violations like it is still 1963 and Democrats are in control down there.

Also, this "red states get more" narrative is disingenuous. Democrats created these programs but they cry foul when states that are not ideologically aligned with them are participating in them.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

----------

Madison (10-22-2017),NORAD (10-24-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Do you believe there is a right to work?


I believe if 51% want a union shop then it should be a union shop and you should have to pay dues because you are benefiting from that union.  If you pay dues you should go to union meetings and vote.  If you don't vote then shut the F up.  

Do you have a general right to work - no.  You do have a right to health care, food, housing, and education.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Where did I say fathers shouldn't be in the house?  I intended to say the opposite.  The idea that having an able bodied man in the house disqualifies one for welfare is a bad idea.


you said "old fashioned" idea...

insinuating it was a long held belief that fathers shouldnt be in the house if the family recieved welfare..

that was the democrats policy intended to destroy the nuclear family,,nothing less..its worked quite well on their former slaves...

----------


## Oskar

> A lot of people on welfare were doing very well in 2008 and haven't been able to over come the Bush Great Recession.


That was the Great Obama Recession which began well after Democrats had taken control of both houses in Congress.

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> the unions drove the auto makers from detroit, the steel mills from pittsburgh, bob...not automation...
> 
> if you are starving where you live you move to an area you can correct that..its not rocket science bob...


Low tariffs and free trade devastated the auto industry.  Granted neither the unions or the companies saw it coming.

----------


## Oskar

> .    Do you have a general right to work - no.


What does that mean in concrete terms?

----------


## Rutabaga

> I believe if 51% want a union shop then it should be a union shop and you should have to pay dues because you are benefiting from that union.  If you pay dues you should go to union meetings and vote.  If you don't vote then shut the F up.  
> 
> Do you have a general right to work - no.  *You do have a right to health care, food, housing, and education.*


*
*
no, you dont,,,nobody does...you have the right to sing the blues, to disagree, to stomp your feet in protest.

----------

Kodiak (10-22-2017),Madison (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> You do have a right to health care, food, housing, and education.


Where do you find those "rights" and what does this mean in concrete terms?

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Low tariffs and free trade devastated the auto industry.  Granted neither the unions or the companies saw it coming.


unions did, bob,,plain and simple..they priced themselves right out of the market...

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> A few days ago, he did post that california had the best weed in the nation.


That is an understatement.  It is the best in the world.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Welfare is a hot button political topic. Rife with abuse, having given rise to the term "welfare state", and probably unconstitutional, it is always being renewed, repackaged, and reformed.
> 
> Stories abound of welfare recipients taking their SNAP cards to the store and walking out with soda, potato chips, and steak. 
> 
> Generations of Democratic politicians have won election by promising to put more people on the "dole", and dependence on government is one of the major objectives of the far left. Without more "services" being paid for by confiscated money (taxes) what reason would government bureaucracy have to exist? 
> 
> Formerly, carrying "food stamps" into a store carried a stigma. People felt shame in having to receive government aid and they worked hard to get off of the welfare rolls. Today, welfare and food stamps have lost their negative image by being renamed TANF and SNAP. People carry debit cards loaded with their benefits rather than waiting for a check to come in the mail. There is little to no difference between these cards and regular debit cards, and when the direct deposits come in, welfare recipients call it "getting paid."
> 
> Welfare reform was a hallmark of the Clinton Administration (but only after he was forced to implement it after the 1994 midterm elections gave Republicans a powerful counterweight in Congress). It supposedly is harder to cheat the system, but it happens anyway, because Dems can count votes with the best of them and welfare recipients (many of whom are black) have rewarded them by reliably pulling the D lever.
> ...


"Welfare," as explained, is individual subsidy. Individual subsidies are not inherent to the US Constitution. Neither are corporate or foreign subsidies. 

Individual subsidies were created for the same reason as corporate and foreign subsidies... as a means to cater to special interest groups. The special interest groups can be the individuals themselves, or the non-profits that represent them, or the governmental groups that represent them.

----------


## Oskar

> That is an understatement.  It is the best in the world.


If you mean the city of Weed,  I would agree. There is also Weedpatch, CA. California has the best places with the word "weed" in there names.

If you mean a certain type of cultivated plant, how do you know and how extensive does the , um, "research" have to be to reach this conclusion?

----------


## Rutabaga

> It doesn't breakdown the type of federal funding. 
> 
> Maybe in the South it is the DOJ putting their nose where it doesn't belong investigating non-existent "civil rights" violations like it is still 1963 and Democrats are in control down there.
> 
> Also, this "red states get more" narrative is disingenuous. Democrats created these programs but they cry foul when states that are not ideologically aligned with them are participating in them.
> 
> Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?


but its a pretty attachment...lots of colors, squiggly lines. :Thumbsup20:

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Ok, lets clarify with what you are disagreeing. You don't think that welfare should be temporary. 
> 
> When should it end?


When it is no longer needed.  I'd think having a minimum monthly stipend from the government, no questions asked should start at 18 and end at death.  That stipend should be enough to afford an apartment, cable, food, and clothing.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Where do you find those "rights" and what does this mean in concrete terms?


he dont know...

----------


## hoytmonger

> When it is no longer needed.  I'd think having a minimum monthly stipend from the government, no questions asked should start at 18 and end at death.  That stipend should be enough to afford an apartment, cable, food, and clothing.


"From the government"

Where the fuck are they getting the money?

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> When it is no longer needed.  I'd think having a minimum monthly stipend from the government, no questions asked should start at 18 and end at death.  That stipend should be enough to afford an apartment, cable, food, and clothing.


"stipend"

you mean charity,,charity starts at home...you support them bob...i'll support mine...

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> If you mean the city of Weed,  I would agree. There is also Weedpatch, CA. California has the best places with the word "weed" in there names.
> 
> If you mean a certain type of cultivated plant, how do you know and how extensive does the , um, "research" have to be to reach this conclusion?


I know the companies I invest in.  They are all top quality producers.  Best in the world.  You should buy their products.

----------


## Rutabaga

> "From the government"
> 
> Where the fuck are they getting the money?


he dont know...

----------


## Madison

> [/B]
> no, you dont,,,nobody does...you have the right to sing the blues, to disagree, to stomp your feet in protest.



Just like a young kid does when it can`t have a candy!

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> When it is no longer needed.  I'd think having a minimum monthly stipend from the government, no questions asked should start at 18 and end at death.  That stipend should be enough to afford an apartment, cable, food, and clothing.


You contradicted yourself Bob. First you agree that it should be temporary and then you say it should be 18-life. 

Which is it?

----------

Madison (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

You know what else is funded by taxpayer dollars that can start at 18 and end at death?

Prison.

----------

Madison (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I know the companies I invest in.  They are all top quality producers.  Best in the world.  You should buy their products.


why not invest your money into feeding the poor bob?

into paying their rents, food, cable, cell phone, electricity, clothes, education, transportation, entertainment, drugs, health care, video games, hair cuts, manis and pedis, movie tickets, vacations, prostitutes, [male/female] movies, junk food and organized sports events?

theres a lot you could do bob to ease their burden from living...

----------

Madison (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You contradicted yourself Bob. First you agree that it should be temporary and then you say it should be 18-life. 
> 
> Which is it?


i think we got a bob-double tossed in the middle here...

----------

Madison (10-22-2017),NORAD (10-24-2017),Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## hoytmonger

> he dont know...


Neither do I 'cause it ain't coming from me. I refuse.
If more people did, the state would bow to the people.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Madison

It`s a RIGHT to search, go for interview and accept the job someone want to give you to earn money to live, eat, lodge yourself

AND ..............the magic word====BUDGET YOURSELF

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> If you mean the city of Weed,  I would agree. There is also Weedpatch, CA. California has the best places with the word "weed" in there names.
> 
> If you mean a certain type of cultivated plant, how do you know and how extensive does the , um, "research" have to be to reach this conclusion?


I spent the night in Hemphill,  Texas.

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

Maybe the reason so many blacks are in prison is because  it is just like being on welfare. You don't have to earn anything, you get three hots and a cot, and in both cases the government owns you.

I can think of a similar institution.

Slavery.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

Is it just a coincidence that a large number of prisoners and welfare recipients are Democrats and that slavery was a Democratic institution?

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Madison

> Maybe the reason so many blacks are in prison is because  it is just like being on welfare. You don't have to earn anything, you get three hots and a cot, and in both cases the government owns you.
> 
> I can think of a similar institution.
> 
> Slavery.


Yup.
And you know what they should force them to work all of them in jail

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## Madison

In Jail a prisoner should be fed with water and bread
The prisoneer want to upgrade the meal : you have to work
You want a better meal: You have to work better and more

----------


## RGV

> Is it just a coincidence that a large number of prisoners and welfare recipients are Democrats and that slavery was a Democratic institution?


Slavery belongs to the *people* in the South and they should pay for it. 
The chart is real simple it's a dollars back for every dollar paid. I kind of like the idea of paying back no more than what the state puts in. How would that work for you?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Is it just a coincidence that a large number of prisoners and welfare recipients are Democrats and that slavery was a Democratic institution?


you are starting to connect the dots...

----------


## RobertLafollet

> he dont know...


  From the people lucky enough to work.

----------


## Rutabaga

> From the people lucky enough to work.


why work if everything is free?

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Slavery belongs to the *people* in the South and they should pay for it.


You do know that there were slaves in the North too, right? 

You know that the Northern economy depended a great deal on slave labor, right?

You know that slave auctions took place in New York City, right?

if not, your history teachers failed you.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> I kind of like the idea of paying back no more than what the state puts in. How would that work for you?


Paying back is an odd way of talking about something that was taken at gunpoint. 

Next you will be telling me that my tax refund is the IRS "paying me back" what I "put in" instead of them returning to me a portion of a non-negotiated interest free loan.

How about the federal government becoming smaller and do more with less?

If you don't believe that taxes are confiscated at gunpoint, try not paying your taxes sometime and see what happens.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-22-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Paying back is an odd way of talking about something that was taken at gunpoint. 
> 
> Next you will be telling me that my tax refund is the IRS "paying me back" what I "put in" instead of them returning to me a portion of a non-negotiated interest free loan.
> 
> How about the federal government becoming smaller and do more with less?
> 
> If you don't believe that taxes are confiscated at gunpoint, try not paying your taxes sometime and see what happens.


i like the old "federal income taxes are voluntary" track...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Paying back is an odd way of talking about something that was taken at gunpoint. 
> 
> Next you will be telling me that my tax refund is the IRS "paying me back" what I "put in" instead of them returning to me a portion of a non-negotiated interest free loan.
> 
> How about the federal government becoming smaller and do more with less?
> 
> *If you don't believe that taxes are confiscated at gunpoint, try not paying your taxes sometime and see what happens.*


*
*yea,,ask al capone about that...

[but not al sharpton,,hes special]

----------


## RGV

> You do know that there were slaves in the North too, right? 
> 
> You know that the Northern economy depended a great deal on slave labor, right?
> 
> You know that slave auctions took place in New York City, right?
> 
> if not, your history teachers failed you.


Hee, hee, Hang on tight to that straw it's a really small one.
The 1790 census showed 40,000 in the North and over 600,000 in the South.
After that point the North stared to abolish so that's the worst it got.

Slavery in the North Compared to the South | Being Factual

----------


## RGV

> Paying back is an odd way of talking about something that was taken at gunpoint. 
> 
> Next you will be telling me that my tax refund is the IRS "paying me back" what I "put in" instead of them returning to me a portion of a non-negotiated interest free loan.
> 
> How about the federal government becoming smaller and do more with less?
> 
> If you don't believe that taxes are confiscated at gunpoint, try not paying your taxes sometime and see what happens.


I don't mind them giving you back a portion of what you paid. I'm just not sure they should give your state back more than it paid. Whatca think?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Hee, hee, Hang on tight to that straw it's a really small one.
> The 1790 census showed 40,000 in the North and over 600,000 in the South.
> After that point the North stared to abolish so that's the worst it got.
> 
> Slavery in the North Compared to the South | Being Factual


but you proved his point!

slaves WERE held in the north, slave auctions WERE held in the north...just not as much as in the agricultural south...

besides,,the south were democrats/dixiecrats...that's why they are still referred to as "the party of slavery"...history,,its not just to be rewritten for agendas...

----------


## Dan40

The purpose of welfare is to enslave that portion of the electorate and to purchase their vote with pennies and intimidation.

IF it was intended to "help," anyone it would come with self help conditions strictly attached, work, education, time limits, amount limits.  But none of that is required, thus the welfare recipient cannot help becoming totally dependent on the welfare.

How hard is it to KNOW,,,,,,,that if you pay a man NOT to work, he won't?

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## RGV

> In Jail a prisoner should be fed with water and bread
> The prisoneer want to upgrade the meal : you have to work
> You want a better meal: You have to work better and more


Maybe you have something there.
Maybe we could do the opposite in the southern states. They are all so fat they cost us a fortune in Medicare and Medicaid. We could make them loose weight before they get treatment.

----------


## RGV

> but you proved his point!
> 
> slaves WERE held in the north, slave auctions WERE held in the north...just not as much as in the agricultural south...
> 
> besides,,the south were democrats/dixiecrats...that's why they are still referred to as "the party of slavery"...history,,its not just to be rewritten for agendas...


I don't care what party they are.. They brought them here they should pay for them.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I don't care what party they are.. They brought them here they should pay for them.


the blacks themselves rounded up and sold sold their kin to other blacks/whites/arabs etc...

[they still do today]

why not blame the suppliers instead of the users?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Maybe you have something there.
> Maybe we could do the opposite in the southern states. They are all so fat they cost us a fortune in Medicare and Medicaid. We could make them loose weight before they get treatment.


most of the fat are in democratic strongholds...

----------


## Rutabaga

> The purpose of welfare is to enslave that portion of the electorate and to purchase their vote with pennies and intimidation.
> 
> IF it was intended to "help," anyone it would come with self help conditions strictly attached, work, education, time limits, amount limits.  But none of that is required, thus the welfare recipient cannot help becoming totally dependent on the welfare.
> 
> *How hard is it to KNOW,,,,,,,that if you pay a man NOT to work, he won't?*


*
tell that to bob,,he thinks working 50 hrs a week to support yourself.family is a privilege...* :Geez:

----------


## RGV

> the blacks themselves rounded up and sold sold their kin to other blacks/whites/arabs etc...
> 
> [they still do today]
> 
> why not blame the suppliers instead of the users?


What are you trying to do? Blame the victims?

----------


## Rutabaga

> What are you trying to do? Blame the victims?


no, im blaming the ones who created the victims, their kin...

----------


## RGV

> no, im blaming the ones who created the victims, their kin...


I see. The slave traders just forced them on the South. That straw is so small you can hardly grasp it.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I see. The slave traders just forced them on the South. That straw is so small you can hardly grasp it.


nonsense,,,you ignore that if not for the FACT that the africans rounded up each other and sold them into bondage [as they still do today] we might not have had african slaves and would have had more irish, chinese and polish indentured slaves...

----------


## Rutabaga

*

*"There were African middlemen ... "Africans sold other Africans into slavery" ... enslave them and to sell them to the white man." "Slavery was a huge ...






*West African to African-Americans: "We Apologize for Slavery ...*A Christian leader of Benin steps toward repentance and reconciliation of their role in sellingslaves ... Johnson says the ... slavery has been hard for many African ...
https://probe.org/west-africans-to-african-americans-we-apo...

----------


## RGV

> nonsense,,,you ignore that if not for the FACT that the africans rounded up each other and sold them into bondage [as they still do today] we might not have had african slaves and would have had more irish, chinese and polish indentured slaves...


It's really hard to sell something when there is no market for it.
If the South didn't want them why did they fight so hard to keep them?

----------


## Rutabaga

> It's really hard to sell something when there is no market for it.
> 
> its harder if the product doesnt exist..
> 
> 
> *If the South didn't want them why did they fight so hard to keep them?*


*
*
ask the democrats...

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## Calypso Jones

well who DOESN"T want a slave??  ask any democrat.  Y'all still own them.

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> well who DOESN"T want a slave??  ask any democrat.  Y'all still own them.


yes,,they just moved them to other plantations...

----------


## RobertLafollet

> but you proved his point!
> 
> slaves WERE held in the north, slave auctions WERE held in the north...just not as much as in the agricultural south...
> 
> besides,,the south were democrats/dixiecrats...that's why they are still referred to as "the party of slavery"...history,,its not just to be rewritten for agendas...


Only Republicans are confused enough to think the Democrats are still the party of slavery.  Times change.  The Dixicrats are now Republicans the new party pf slavery.

----------


## Oskar

> Hee, hee, Hang on tight to that straw it's a really small one.
> The 1790 census showed 40,000 in the North and over 600,000 in the South.
> After that point the North stared to abolish so that's the worst it got.
> 
> Slavery in the North Compared to the South | Being Factual


You submit a link to a _blog_ as evidence? LOL!

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> I don't mind them giving you back a portion of what you paid. I'm just not sure they should give your state back more than it paid. Whatca think?


I thought that you said earlier that my state "gets back" less than it "puts in". 

Where do you think I live?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> most of the fat are in democratic strongholds...


When Trump golfs he shows he is fat.

----------


## RGV

> I thought that you said earlier that my state "gets back" less than it "puts in". 
> 
> Where do you think I live?


Denial.

----------


## Don29palms

> When Trump golfs he shows he is fat.


Drink bleach Robert the retarded troll.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> You submit a link to a _blog_ as evidence? LOL!


Blog or not it's a fact.  I'll submit a book Border War by Stanley Harold.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Only Republicans are confused enough to think the Democrats are still the party of slavery.  Times change.  The Dixicrats are now Republicans the new party pf slavery.


Robert...honestly.  Democrats are still the same...Like Dr. Swain said, "democrats had to accept that blacks were gonna vote so they said, 'if they're gonna vote we gonna get them to vote for us.'"     The left are such sneaking liars.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> the blacks themselves rounded up and sold sold their kin to other blacks/whites/arabs etc...
> 
> [they still do today]
> 
> why not blame the suppliers instead of the users?


That would be racist and the National Association of Always Complaining People would cry foul.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Robert...honestly.  Democrats are still the same...Like Dr. Swain said, "democrats had to accept that blacks were gonna vote so they said, 'if they're gonna vote we gonna get them to vote for us.'"     The left are such sneaking liars.


Dixicrats weren't even the same as Northern Democrats in 1860.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Only Republicans are confused enough to think the Democrats are still the party of slavery.  Times change.  The Dixicrats are now Republicans the new party pf slavery.


nonsense...no matter how hard you try to deny whats plain to every thinking American, the democrats haven't changed their spots...

----------


## Oskar

> Blog or not it's a fact.  I'll submit a book Border War by Stanley Harold.


The book would be a better source. Let's assume for the moment that it is a fact (as of now it is unverified). 

What is your point? Are you saying the Northern slave owners were better than the Southern slave owners?

How have you countered anything I said, which is that slavery existed in the North, benefited the North, and that slave auctions took place in the North?

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Dixicrats weren't even the same as Northern Democrats in 1860.


the democrats are the party of slavery, discrimination, racism, segregation, the kkk and lies...

same as yesterday holds true today...

----------


## Oskar

> Dixicrats weren't even the same as Northern Democrats in 1860.


Open question to Democrats: Would you like some popular sovereignty with your states rights?

----------


## Rutabaga

> That would be racist and the National Association of Always Complaining People would cry foul.


when you only have 1 weapon in your arsenal you go with that...

----------


## Oskar

Democrats are the party of Jim Crow, don't forget _that_.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You submit a link to a _blog_ as evidence? LOL!


he dont know...

----------


## Rutabaga

> When Trump golfs he shows he is fat.


lets see a picture of you bob...if it will fit on the screen...

----------


## Oskar

> When Trump golfs he shows he is fat.


When Obama golfed he showed that he was out of touch.

Most of his sons have never picked up a golf club and used it on a real course.

Neither have I.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Blog or not it's a fact.  I'll submit a book Border War by Stanley Harold.


fact is it supports the post he was trying to refute...you cant get much dumber than that...

----------


## Rutabaga

> The book would be a better source. Let's assume for the moment that it is a fact (as of now it is unverified). 
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying the Northern slave owners were better than the Southern slave owners?
> 
> How have you countered anything I said, which is that slavery existed in the North, benefited the North, and that slave auctions took place in the North?


no,,hes just trying to redirect to something hes more comfortable with...dont let him...

----------


## Oskar

> when you only have 1 weapon in your arsenal you go with that...


The NAACP has a new president. I think that I will start a thread on it. They seem upset that they are no longer on the forefront of "civil rights". I guess the Dems made a mistake alienating blacks to focus on the new "victims" like illegal aliens and LGBTQXZYW.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Democrats are the party of Jim Crow, don't forget _that_.


jim crow, kkk, they fought against the emancipation proclamation, civil rights, gave us affirmative action to buy more votes, fight against voter i.d. to garner more illegal votes. their entire history from their first meeting to yesterday is one of the same...

----------

Oskar (10-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The NAACP has a new president. I think that I will start a thread on it. They seem upset that they are no longer on the forefront of "civil rights". I guess the Dems made a mistake alienating blacks to focus on the new "victims" like illegal aliens and LGBTQXZYW.


once the mexicans are the majority pop. the blacks will be shit out of luck...the mexicans didnt buy slaves from africa,,they took theirs from the natives...[and the natives took theirs from each other and the mexicans]

----------

Northern Rivers (10-23-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> The Dixicrats are now Republicans the new party pf slavery.


LOL! Every Dixiecrat politician remained in the Democratic Party. The South took over 4 decades to turn red from blue and they did so because the Democratic party abandoned the working class, alienated Christians, and became the vehicle for communism in the United States.

Now, lets examine your claim that Republicans are the "party of slavery". 

Can you name a Republican who owns a slave or who advocates for slavery?

Meanwhile, you have the Democratic Party, who has always been the party of slavery keeping blacks on the plantation with welfare, food stamps, and Obamacare.

Democrats have never changed their spots. They have always been a racist party and are today fully wedded to divisive identity politics, putting everyone in a manageable box rather than uniting us as Americans.

President Trump won because the American people rejected identity politics. 

We wanted to be Americans again.

----------

Rutabaga (10-22-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Denial.


No really, what U.S. state do you think I live in? I will give you a hint, it voted for Hillary.

----------


## Oskar

> Robert...honestly.  Democrats are still the same...Like Dr. Swain said, "democrats had to accept that blacks were gonna vote so they said, 'if they're gonna vote we gonna get them to vote for us.'"     The left are such sneaking liars.


"I'll have those ******s voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

- Lyndon Johnson (D)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> LOL! Every Dixiecrat politician remained in the Democratic Party. The South took over 4 decades to turn red from blue and they did so because the Democratic party abandoned the working class, alienated Christians, and became the vehicle for communism in the United States.
> 
> Now, lets examine your claim that Republicans are the "party of slavery". 
> 
> Can you name a Republican who owns a slave or who advocates for slavery?
> 
> Meanwhile, you have the Democratic Party, who has always been the party of slavery keeping blacks on the plantation with welfare, food stamps, and Obamacare.
> 
> Democrats have never changed their spots. They have always been a racist party and are today fully wedded to divisive identity politics, putting everyone in a manageable box rather than uniting us as Americans.
> ...


"Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust."5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines

As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.

Ibid.


I do not say there were not northerners involved with slavery, only that from early on more an more northerners turned against it and became willing to fight it with violence.  Meanwhile the South became more and more tied to it.  States right became a code for preserving sslavery.  One famous Republican slave holder was General U.S. Grant.  Admittedly he came about that 2nd hand as he married a Missouri woman with a plantation that had slaves.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Open question to Democrats: Would you like some popular sovereignty with your states rights?


Basically I think we've outgrown states.  A national market requires national regulation.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> No really, what U.S. state do you think I live in? I will give you a hint, it voted for Hillary.


I live in California.  I've lived in New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.  Guess I could add Illinois as I was born there but left by the time I was 6 months old.  A state is just a place I currently live.  I have no particular allegiance to it.  In fact I have more allegiance to Hemp Inc which I have stock in then California.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> once the mexicans are the majority pop. the blacks will be shit out of luck...the mexicans didnt buy slaves from africa,,they took theirs from the natives...[and the natives took theirs from each other and the mexicans]


I want a NAAWP...

----------

Oskar (10-23-2017),Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I want a NAAWP...


So create one.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I want a NAAWP...


The US is rapidly becoming a nation of minorities.  I doubt that a single ethnic group will be able to claim to be the majority in a few years.  That is a very good thing.  Heck listen to the ancestry commercials nobody is pure blooded now.

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

> Even the head of ICE says people come for jobs not handouts.


No one is perfect, not even ICE.  One can look at how Corrupt our institutions and departments have become under the feckless "Pee-Wee Herman Hussein."  It's going to take time to clear out all the rats from there hiding places in the Swamp.

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> "Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers phrase All men are created equal applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting negro equality. In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust."5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines
> 
> As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didnt have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
> 
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> I do not say there were not northerners involved with slavery, only that from early on more an more northerners turned against it and became willing to fight it with violence.  Meanwhile the South became more and more tied to it.  States right became a code for preserving sslavery.  One famous Republican slave holder was General U.S. Grant.  Admittedly he came about that 2nd hand as he married a Missouri woman with a plantation that had slaves.


all that and it doesnt address anything here...

bad dodge, dodge boy...

----------


## RobertLafollet

> all that and it doesnt address anything here...
> 
> bad dodge, dodge boy...


I was asked about a Republican who supported slavery.  I gave two.  

In fact the Republicans chose Lincoln because they considered him a moderate on the issuer who might be electable.  Because the Democratic party split into a norther and southern part as well as the development of a border state union party he was able to win.  Until he ran for President Lincoln had always been a Whig from the Henry Clay wing of that party.  Henry Clay was a slave holder.  Lincoln's views were very similar to Clay's.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I was asked about a Republican who supported slavery.  I gave two.  
> 
> In fact the Republicans chose Lincoln because they considered him a moderate on the issuer who might be electable.  Because the Democratic party split into a norther and southern part as well as the development of a border state union party he was able to win.  Until he ran for President Lincoln had always been a Whig from the Henry Clay wing of that party.  Henry Clay was a slave holder.  Lincoln's views were very similar to Clay's.



*Abraham Lincoln [COLOR=rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.2)]Biography.com[/COLOR]*U.S. Representative, U.S. President, Lawyer(1809–1865)

60.3K
SHARES




*QUICK FACTS*NAMEAbraham LincolnOCCUPATIONU.S. Representative, U.S. President, LawyerBIRTH DATEFebruary 12, 1809DEATH DATEApril 15, 1865DID YOU KNOW?A former Whig Party member, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856.DID YOU KNOW?Lincoln's son, Robert Todd Lincoln, was saved from getting hit by a train by Edwin Booth, John Wilkes Booth's brother.DID YOU KNOW?Lincoln was an accomplished wrestler: He was defeated only once in about 300 matches, and is enshrined in the Wrestling Hall of Fame.PLACE OF BIRTHHodgenville, KentuckyPLACE OF DEATHWashington, D.C.

WHO WAS ABRAHAM LINCOLN?WIFE AND KIDSTHE CIVIL WARVIDEOSRELATED VIDEOS

CITE THIS PAGE
Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States. He preserved the Union during the U.S. Civil War and brought about the emancipation of slaves.
*IN THESE GROUPS*FAMOUS PEOPLE BORN IN KENTUCKYFAMOUS CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVESFAMOUS PEOPLE BORN IN UNITED STATESWHO IS ON YOUR MONEY? (PHOTOS)Show All Groups

1 of 17
« »QUOTES
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.”

—Abraham Lincoln

*Who Was Abraham Lincoln?*Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 to April 14, 1865) was the 16th president of the United States and is regarded as one of America's greatest heroes due to his role as savior of the Union and emancipator of the slaves. His rise from humble beginnings to achieving the highest office in the land is a remarkable story. He was suddenly and tragically assassinated at a time when his country needed him to complete the great task remaining before the nation. His eloquence of democracy and insistence that the Union was worth saving embody the ideals of self-government that all nations strive to achieve. Lincoln's distinctively human and humane personality and incredible impact on the nation has endowed him with an enduring legacy.

----------


## Dan40

> tell that to bob,,he thinks working 50 hrs a week to support yourself.family is a privilege...[/B]


Idiots abound, nothing I can do about it.

YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID.

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> I see. The slave traders just forced them on the South. That straw is so small you can hardly grasp it.


Then and now, the market dominates.  The north was industrial, the south was agricultural.  North needed skilled workers, the south needed labor.  The black slavers sold their products where the best market reigned, the Democrat, prejudiced south.

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Idiots abound, nothing I can do about it.
> 
> YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID.


he cant distinguish between privilege and personal responsibility...

----------


## Morning Star

> Only Republicans are confused enough to think the Democrats are still the party of slavery.  Times change.  The Dixicrats are now Republicans the new party pf slavery.


The parties just magically switched places,  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The parties just magically switched places,


the failed "souther strategy theory" was voted the most outlandish conspiracy theory of the 20th century for a good reason...it was...

only an idiot could fathom 2 political parties completely reversing ideals/voters/people in a relatively short amt. of time...its laughable on its entire premise...

meanwhile,,,here's chris rock on black culture,,,from the horses mouth so to speak..

----------


## Oskar

> I was asked about a Republican who supported slavery.  I gave two.


Lincoln was anti-slavery. He didn't want the institution to spread into the western territories. Being anti-slavery is not the same as abolitionist.

----------


## Oskar

> Basically I think we've outgrown states.  A national market requires national regulation.


Why not take it to the next logical step, Bob? A _one world government._

----------


## Dos Equis

Hello, my name is Jimmie and I'll take all you can give me.

----------


## Oskar

> I live in California.  I've lived in New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.  Guess I could add Illinois as I was born there but left by the time I was 6 months old.  A state is just a place I currently live.  I have no particular allegiance to it.  In fact I have more allegiance to Hemp Inc which I have stock in then California.


I am a citizen of the sovereign state of California. The California state constitution says that I am a member of the California state militia by nature of my residency and age. The 2nd Amendment is meant to maintain the s_ecurity of free states._

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> meanwhile,,,here's chris rock on black culture,,,from the horses mouth so to speak..


Black people know it. The only ones that cry racism over it is white guilt libtards.

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> Basically I think we've outgrown states.  A national market requires national regulation.


It's hard to have a Socialist Dictatorship without it.

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> So create one.


I think an NAAWP already exists (or did), as does White Lives Matter.

----------


## Morning Star

> I think an NAAWP already exists (or did), as does White Lives Matter.


Where?

----------


## Oskar

> The US is rapidly becoming a nation of minorities.


Then why not call white people minorities when they are numerically smaller? Instead you have my city, county, and state referred to as "majority-minority" with the implicit idea that only "people of color" (or LGBTQXZYJVDR)  can be minorities .

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Where?


Well, NAAWP existed in the 1960s and 1970s, you can look them up.

 White Lives Matter is made up of several groups who wish to address the threat of white genocide.

  I won't mention any of them because they may not be allowed, but you can certainly find them.

 Bob said it above - soon there will be very few white people on this continent, and the cultural Marxists claim this to be a good thing.

To secure the existence of our people and a future for white children we must separate from this sick surrounding society that wants us dead - not one by one in remote cabins or 20 acre compounds - but in a big enough place that we can create an autonomous civilization and culture and regenerate as a people.

----------


## Morning Star

Every country that has tried white genocide ends up like South Africa. Apartheid was the best thing to ever happen to Africa.

No whitey means no free stuff, which ends up in mass starvation and endless war.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Well, NAAWP existed in the 1960s and 1970s, you can look them up.
> 
>  White Lives Matter is made up of several groups who wish to address the threat of white genocide.
> 
>   I won't mention any of them because they may not be allowed, but you can certainly find them.
> 
>  Bob said it above - soon there will be very few white people on this continent, and the cultural Marxists claim this to be a good thing.
> 
> To secure the existence of our people and a future for white children we must separate from this sick surrounding society that wants us dead - not one by one in remote cabins or 20 acre compounds - but in a big enough place that we can create an autonomous civilization and culture and regenerate as a people.


I did not say their wouldn't be very few white people.  Do not think that is the case.  What I think is that we will end up 1/4 black, a 1/4 asian, a 1/4 white and 1/4 mixed with fastest growing group mixed.  Likely there will areas of greater concentration for all the groups.  By the way Hispanics are more a culture and language then a race.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Why not take it to the next logical step, Bob? A _one world government._


We are moving in that direction.  I just don't think the US is ready for it yes.  We would have to give up to much.

----------


## Morning Star

> We are moving in that direction.  I just don't think the US is ready for it yes.  We would have to give up to much.


Only you libtards are moving in this direction, and THAT is why Hillary Lost

----------

Sled Dog (10-23-2017)

----------


## Don29palms

> Only you libtards are moving in this direction, and THAT is why Hillary Lost


That's what his unicorns and robots tell him. Robert the retarded troll lives in a delusional utopian anti reality.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Only you libtards are moving in this direction, and THAT is why Hillary Lost


Business is moving in that direction because it is profitable.  Look at Apple, Ford, GM, Toyota, Royal Dutch Shell,  Walmart, McDonalds, Exon, Trump Hotels and many many others.  They are all international companies with massive economic power that they use to influence or control the counties of the world.  These countries are sometimes run by people mostly from one country but more and more they are run by people from multiple countries.   One of the companies I have stock in is CWCO Consolidated Water.  It operates in Mexico, the Caribbean and Bali.  It trades on the NASDAQ.   It operates under several legal environments.  That is not optimal and increases the possibility that it may be faced with conflicting laws.  

Of course that means business will push politicians toward globalization.  Since Republicans are more business oriented then Democrats they are more likely globalist.

----------


## RGV

> the failed "souther strategy theory" was voted the most outlandish conspiracy theory of the 20th century for a good reason...it was...
> 
> only an idiot could fathom 2 political parties completely reversing ideals/voters/people in a relatively short amt. of time...its laughable on its entire premise...
> 
> meanwhile,,,here's chris rock on black culture,,,from the horses mouth so to speak..


I like these better:
Lincoln was a Republican - Fact or Myth?
Why Did Democrats Lose the White South?  Mother Jones
And I still think we should not let a state get back more federal money than it has paid in.
You could fund all that welfare you guys are crying about by doing that with just 3 or 4 southern states.
Seems fair to me. Just because the red states are the taker states....... :Smiley20:

----------


## Tennyson

House of Representatives, January 10, 1794: 

  Mr. MADISON remarked, that the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of the St. Domingo sufferers. The report of the committee, he observed, involved this constitutional question -- whether the money of our constituents can be appropriated to any other than specific purposes. Though he was of opinion that the relief contemplated could not be granted in the way proposed, yet he supposed a mode might be adopted which would answer the purpose without infringing the Constitution.

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017),Oskar (10-23-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Every country that has tried white genocide ends up like South Africa. Apartheid was the best thing to ever happen to Africa.
> 
> No whitey means no free stuff, which ends up in mass starvation and endless war.


Oh they will keep a few white boys and girls around to fix their gadgets and maintain some semblance of civilization (our gift to the planet) but they want most of us dead.

 They never want white people to have any power again. It's not even about reparations, it is non-white supremacy.

Rhodesia and South Africa were wonderful places back in the day, but they had the same drawback as the U.S., namely that apartheid still meant that the two races lived under the same government.

That has to change without destroying either one. (See my sig).

----------


## RobertLafollet

> House of Representatives, January 10, 1794: 
>   Mr. MADISON remarked, that the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of the St. Domingo sufferers. The report of the committee, he observed, involved this constitutional question -- whether the money of our constituents can be appropriated to any other than specific purposes. Though he was of opinion that the relief contemplated could not be granted in the way proposed, yet he supposed a mode might be adopted which would answer the purpose without infringing the Constitution.


Madison was one man others some of whom were in the Congress at the time disagreed.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Oh they will keep a few white boys and girls around to fix their gadgets and maintain some semblance of civilization (our gift to the planet) but they want most of us dead.
> 
>  They never want white people to have any power again. It's not even about reparations, it is non-white supremacy.
> 
> Rhodesia and South Africa were wonderful places back in the day, but they had the same drawback as the U.S., namely that apartheid still meant that the two races lived under the same government.
> 
> That has to change without destroying either one. (See my sig).


Some you're saying some black guy wants his daughter in law dead or maybe his wife?  What about his mixed kids or grandkids.

----------


## Oskar

> I did not say their wouldn't be very few white people.


I did, and current demographic trends bear it out. I am white and if you are white, in 100 years there will be no people who look like you and me on this continent - unless the train is stopped and reversed.

----------


## Oskar

> Some you're saying some black guy wants his daughter in law dead or maybe his wife?  What about his mixed kids or grandkids.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean because it is garbled, but if your point is that many blacks really don't think that black lives matter, this is true.

Witness Chicago.

----------


## Oskar

> Madison was one man others some of whom were in the Congress at the time disagreed.


Madison understood the constitution quite well. He is known as the "father of the Constitution".

Welfare is unconstitutional.

----------


## Tennyson

> Madison was one man others some of whom were in the Congress at the time disagreed.


Three questions:

Who disagreed?

What happened to that bill?

And where in the Constitution is the power for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on welfare?

----------


## RGV

> And where in the Constitution is the power for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on welfare?


Does it really matter if they are doing it?
Take a deep breath. It will be okay.

----------


## Tennyson

> Does it really matter if they are doing it?
> Take a deep breath. It will be okay.


Would it really matter if only Democrats lost their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017),Sled Dog (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> What I think is that we will end up 1/4 black, a 1/4 asian, a 1/4 white and 1/4 mixed with fastest growing group mixed.  Likely there will areas of greater concentration for all the groups.


If the races were meant to be mixed like this, then why were they created separate?

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> By the way Hispanics are more a culture and language then a race.


Tell that to La Raza (the race) and Brown Power types.

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> We are moving in that direction.  I just don't think the US is ready for it yes.  We would have to give up to much.


We will never be ready for it, it would mean the destruction of the republic.

----------


## Oskar

> Since Republicans are more business oriented then Democrats they are more likely globalist.


Care to tell us how you reach this conclusion?

----------


## Oskar

> Why Did Democrats Lose the White South?  Mother Jones


Mother Jones?

LOL!

----------

Rutabaga (10-23-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Care to tell us how you reach this conclusion?


Republican tend to be chamber of commerce types.  For instance the primary movers behind the cut in the corporate tax are Republicans.  The Bush's were the primary pushers of NAFTA.  Yes Clinton agreed.  

"Rep. Paul Ryan on Thursday brought his ideological love for free enterprise to the congressional debate over giving President Barack Obama trade promotion authority, arguing that U.S. companies and consumers benefit from trade agreements far more than they are harmed.
The thing about trade is, it can feel like a competition, where theres always a winner and always a loser, the former vice-presidential candidate said in what was billed as his first major trade speech since taking the helm of the House Ways and Means Committee in January. But really, its more like a collaboration because both sides succeed. Otherwise, they wouldnt do it. More trade means more people from every country, buying, selling, investing, creating  all working together to build a better world.
Ryan, who was speaking to trade policy professionals at the Washington International Trade Association, promised quick action on trade promotion authority, a bill that would help the White House bring home a pair of big new trade agreements. He also said he expected movement on a raft of other trade legislation including renewals of the Generalized System of Preferences and African Growth and Opportunity Act, which waive duties on imports from poor countries, as well as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which cuts duties on manufacturing supplies that are hard to find, and a customs reauthorization and trade enforcement package"

Rep. Paul Ryan brings free market zeal to trade debate - POLITICO

Harder to get stuff on the Senate.  McConnell he prefers to stay close mouthed.

Senate on Tuesday narrowly voted to end debate on legislation granting Mr. Obama enhanced negotiating powers to complete a major Pacific trade accord, virtually assuring final passage Wednesday of Mr. Obamas top legislative priority in his final years in office.

The procedural vote of 60 to 37 just reached the minimum needed, but final Senate passage will require only 51 votes. The House approved trade promotion authority last week.

With congressional support for fast track authority, the president can press for final agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a legacy-defining accord linking 40 percent of the worlds economy  from Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia  in a web of rules governing Pacific commerce. His administration can also bear down on a second agreement with Europe  known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership  knowing that lawmakers will be able to vote for or against those agreements but will not be able to amend or filibuster them.

The Atlantic agreement is not expected to be completed until the next administration is in office, but the trade negotiating powers would stretch for six years  well into the next presidency. Together those two accords would put much of the globe under the same trade rules, not only lowering tariffs and other import barriers but also creating new standards for Internet access, intellectual property and investor protections.

This is a very important day for our country, said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, whose procedural maneuvering was largely responsible for the outcome. America is back in the trade business.

Most Democrats  along with labor unions, environmental groups and liberal activists  disagreed, saying that such trade agreements had resulted in lost manufacturing jobs and lower wages for American workers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/senate-vote-on-trade-bill.html

Basically on trade Trump took the Democratic/Labor position and Obama/Clinton took the Republican/Big business position.  I consider that a significant factor in Trumps victory.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I did, and current demographic trends bear it out. I am white and if you are white, in 100 years there will be no people who look like you and me on this continent - unless the train is stopped and reversed.


You might be right but their will be fewer of the other ethnic groups as well.  We will likely be a darker, Eurasian people.  That will likely to make us stronger.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean because it is garbled, but if your point is that many blacks really don't think that black lives matter, this is true.
> 
> Witness Chicago.


It means that we are becoming a nation of mixed families.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The purpose of welfare is to take care of people.


Rodent politicians aren't "people".

----------

Oskar (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Three questions:
> 
> Who disagreed?
> 
> What happened to that bill?
> 
> And where in the Constitution is the power for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on welfare?


_Philadelphia Gazette_, 14 Jan. 1794 (also reported in _Gazette of the U.S._, 11 Jan. 1794, and _Dunlap and Claypooles Am. Daily Advertiser_, 14 Jan. 1794).


1. After further debate, Smiths report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, which took it up on 28 Jan. Nicholas urged a private subscription among the members; Smith replied that himself and others who had seen the scene of distress were surprised, the gentleman did not feel as they did. Nicholas protested against this personal attack and asserted that his opposition to federal relief was based on constitutional considerations. JM professed scruples of the same kind. He thought that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) would not have injured his cause, by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by not saying, that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye witness. On 4 Feb. the House passed An act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want of support. The act authorized the president to distribute from the treasury to the refugees $15,000, which was to be provisionally charged against the American debt to France. The House agreed to a Senate amendment on 10 Feb., and Washington signed the act two days later (_Annals of Congress_, 3d Cong., 1st sess., 173, 422, 442; _Philadelphia Gazette_, 31 Jan. 1794; _U.S. Statutes at Large_, 6:13).

Santo Domingan Refugees, [10 January] 1794

It would seem that Washington, Hamilton and Congress in 1794 favored a powerful federal government and a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.  The Federalist party was dominant in the early Republic.

----------


## Sled Dog

> In Jail a prisoner should be fed with water and bread
> The prisoneer want to upgrade the meal : you have to work
> You want a better meal: You have to work better and more


Don't be ridiculous.    

Never heard the phrase "man cannot live by bread alone"?

Really, there's not enough nutrients there.

Let Sheriff Arpaio write them a menu.

When that's challenged in court and thrown out...give them Moochelle's school lunch menu.

Then the prisoners would REALLY scream.


But they don't need meat.  They can get all they need in their showers.

----------


## Sled Dog

> _Philadelphia Gazette_, 14 Jan. 1794 (also reported in _Gazette of the U.S._, 11 Jan. 1794, and _Dunlap and Claypoole’s Am. Daily Advertiser_, 14 Jan. 1794).
> 
> 
> 1. After further debate, Smith’s report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, which took it up on 28 Jan. Nicholas urged a private subscription among the members; Smith replied that “himself and others who had seen the scene of distress were surprised, the gentleman did not feel as they did.” Nicholas protested against this personal attack and asserted that his opposition to federal relief was based on constitutional considerations. JM “professed scruples of the same kind. He thought that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) would not have injured his cause, by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by not saying, that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye witness.” On 4 Feb. the House passed “An act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want of support.” The act authorized the president to distribute from the treasury to the refugees $15,000, which was to be provisionally charged against the American debt to France. The House agreed to a Senate amendment on 10 Feb., and Washington signed the act two days later (_Annals of Congress_, 3d Cong., 1st sess., 173, 422, 442; _Philadelphia Gazette_, 31 Jan. 1794; _U.S. Statutes at Large_, 6:13).
> 
> Santo Domingan Refugees, [10 January] 1794
> 
> It would seem that Washington, Hamilton and Congress in 1794 favored a powerful federal government and a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.  The Federalist party was dominant in the early Republic.



Oh.

No Amendment to the Constitution cited, there's STILL NO AUTHORITY granted to Congress to waste money on "welfare".

Nobody ever told you that federal law is subordinate to the Constitution, bobby?


Your next job is to cite the Amendment to the Constitution that permits Congress to federalize public schools.

THEN you can work to find the  Amendment to the Constitution that permits Congress to destroy the nation's health insurance industry.

AND THEN, you find the clause of the Constitution that permits the states to override federal immigration law.

----------

NORAD (10-24-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The NAACP has a new president. I think that I will start a thread on it. They seem upset that they are no longer on the forefront of "civil rights". I guess the Dems made a mistake alienating blacks to focus on the new "victims" like illegal aliens and LGBTQXZYW.


Rachel Dolezai?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Mother Jones?
> 
> LOL!


 :Geez:

----------


## Sled Dog

> Only Republicans are confused enough to think the Democrats are still the party of slavery.  Times change.  The Dixicrats are now Republicans the new party pf slavery.


No confusion.

Welfare is slavery.

Aunty Fa is slavery.

Fascism is socialism and socialism is slavery.

I gotta ask...do you make as much as a penny a word for the total bullshit you post, @Roberlafollet?   You wouldn't want to post your DNC/George Soros rate-sheet, would you?   How about your Fascists' Writer's Guide?

NOBODY can actually believe the shit you write,   people that stupid need mechanical assistance to remember to breathe.

----------

Libhater (10-24-2017),Northern Rivers (10-24-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> When Trump golfs he shows he is fat.


When Mochelle walks, she shows he's not a she.

Moochelle_dabd41bb041a59f7b5b7cd48d41826f9.jpg

What did you say about Trump, again?   

Trump is a 70+ year old man.  

Moochelle Obama is a man in his mid-fifties.

----------

MrogersNhood (10-25-2017),Northern Rivers (10-24-2017),Rutabaga (10-24-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Dixicrats weren't even the same as Northern Democrats in 1860.



You mean Rodents DIE?

Amazing.


They don't let that stop them from voting.

----------

Oskar (10-24-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The book would be a better source. Let's assume for the moment that it is a fact (as of now it is unverified). 
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying the Northern slave owners were better than the Southern slave owners?
> 
> How have you countered anything I said, which is that slavery existed in the North, benefited the North, and that slave auctions took place in the North?


Yeah.

It "benefitted" the North.

That's why the North was the home of the Abolition movement.

For some strange reason, it was the Rodents in the South that brokered their own national convention in 1860 because they WERE NOT going to "compromise" on the slavery issue, and they soon after started a war that killed more than a million Americans....just so you people could still own your ******s.

Who do you think you're fooling, Bobby?

----------


## Tennyson

> _Philadelphia Gazette_, 14 Jan. 1794 (also reported in _Gazette of the U.S._, 11 Jan. 1794, and _Dunlap and Claypooles Am. Daily Advertiser_, 14 Jan. 1794).
> 
> 
> 1. After further debate, Smiths report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, which took it up on 28 Jan. Nicholas urged a private subscription among the members; Smith replied that himself and others who had seen the scene of distress were surprised, the gentleman did not feel as they did. Nicholas protested against this personal attack and asserted that his opposition to federal relief was based on constitutional considerations. JM professed scruples of the same kind. He thought that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) would not have injured his cause, by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by not saying, that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye witness. On 4 Feb. the House passed An act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want of support. The act authorized the president to distribute from the treasury to the refugees $15,000, which was to be provisionally charged against the American debt to France. The House agreed to a Senate amendment on 10 Feb., and Washington signed the act two days later (_Annals of Congress_, 3d Cong., 1st sess., 173, 422, 442; _Philadelphia Gazette_, 31 Jan. 1794; _U.S. Statutes at Large_, 6:13).
> 
> Santo Domingan Refugees, [10 January] 1794
> 
> It would seem that Washington, Hamilton and Congress in 1794 favored a powerful federal government and a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.  The Federalist party was dominant in the early Republic.


 


> It would seem that Washington, Hamilton and Congress in 1794 favored a powerful federal government and a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. The Federalist party was dominant in the early Republic.


And that is why the Federalist Party was eviscerated in the 1800 election except you are off regarding Congress.

----------


## Oskar

> Republican tend to be chamber of commerce types.  For instance the primary movers behind the cut in the corporate tax are Republicans.  The Bush's were the primary pushers of NAFTA.  Yes Clinton agreed.  
> 
> "Rep. Paul Ryan on Thursday brought his ideological love for free enterprise to the congressional debate over giving President Barack Obama trade promotion authority, arguing that U.S. companies and consumers benefit from trade agreements far more than they are harmed.
> The thing about trade is, it can feel like a competition, where theres always a winner and always a loser, the former vice-presidential candidate said in what was billed as his first major trade speech since taking the helm of the House Ways and Means Committee in January. But really, its more like a collaboration because both sides succeed. Otherwise, they wouldnt do it. More trade means more people from every country, buying, selling, investing, creating  all working together to build a better world.
> Ryan, who was speaking to trade policy professionals at the Washington International Trade Association, promised quick action on trade promotion authority, a bill that would help the White House bring home a pair of big new trade agreements. He also said he expected movement on a raft of other trade legislation including renewals of the Generalized System of Preferences and African Growth and Opportunity Act, which waive duties on imports from poor countries, as well as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which cuts duties on manufacturing supplies that are hard to find, and a customs reauthorization and trade enforcement package"
> 
> Rep. Paul Ryan brings free market zeal to trade debate - POLITICO
> 
> Harder to get stuff on the Senate.  McConnell he prefers to stay close mouthed.
> ...


RINOs are globalists just like the Establishment Democrats.

Ryan and McConnell left the GOP a long time a go.

----------

MrogersNhood (10-25-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> You might be right but their will be fewer of the other ethnic groups as well.  We will likely be a darker, Eurasian people.  *That will likely to make us stronger*.


What does _this_ mean?

----------


## Oskar

> It means that we are becoming a nation of mixed families.


Yes, and that is not good. 

No multi-ethnic empire has ever survived once it went down the miscegenation road.

See the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire (which was not holy, Roman, nor an empire), and Austria-Hungary for examples.

The Ottoman Empire can be included to albeit to a lesser extent and with other factors being more responsible (that is for another thread).

----------


## Oskar

> Rachel Dolezai?


Not her. I've saved the print paper mainly because I want to see how the fake news handled 10/1. 

I mean I already know they are parroting "lone gunman", no motive", must ban guns" - but it will be good to read it straight from the horses mouth.

----------


## Oskar

> Yeah.
> 
> It "benefitted" the North.
> 
> That's why the North was the home of the Abolition movement.
> 
> For some strange reason, it was the Rodents in the South that brokered their own national convention in 1860 because they WERE NOT going to "compromise" on the slavery issue, and they soon after started a war that killed more than a million Americans....just so you people could still own your ******s.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling, Bobby?


Abolitionists were a very small minority, even in the North.

Cotton (and other crops) were transported from the South to the North to be shipped to Europe. The American economy was integrated and the dollars going to Wall Street were a prime motivator for anti-slavery types who were fine with keeping the peculiar institution in the South but opposed to expanding it to the territories because it would upset the balance of power in Congress.


 Anti-slavery is not the same as abolitionism.

The economic reasons for the War Between the States are well documented. I could write a whole book covering the issue, so I will leave you to do your own research.

 Northern politicians (both Republican and Democrat) were willing to compromise with the South (and did) prior to 1861. Why? Because slavery helped their constituents economically.

They could not compromise on expansion to the territories and that is where Lincoln drew the line. Read some of the Articles of Secession for the Confederate states - they make it clear that Lincoln's position on _expansion of slavery_ was their primary reason for leaving. Read Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley where he says that if he could preserve the Union and keep slavery in the South, he would do it.

Slavery was benefiting the North until the South threatened to take it to New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Ralph Waldo Emerson warned that "Mexico will poison us."

He was right.

----------


## Oskar

As for me, I am anti-slavery now and would have been then.

Blacks sold their own people into slavery but the whites who bought them should have known that mixing the races would bring trouble.

Then you have the middle men. People don't want to be reminded that many slave traders were Jews.

----------

Libhater (10-24-2017)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> When Mochelle walks, she shows he's not a she.
> 
> Attachment 25256
> 
> What did you say about Trump, again?   
> 
> Trump is a 70+ year old man.  
> 
> Moochelle Obama is a man in his mid-fifties.


Read this and you will be up to speed:

Kashyyyk - Wikipedia

----------


## Northern Rivers

> No confusion.
> 
> Welfare is slavery.
> 
> Aunty Fa is slavery.
> 
> Fascism is socialism and socialism is slavery.
> 
> I gotta ask...do you make as much as a penny a word for the total bullshit you post, @Roberlafollet?   You wouldn't want to post your DNC/George Soros rate-sheet, would you?   How about your Fascists' Writer's Guide?
> ...


 :Dontknow:

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Oh.
> 
> No Amendment to the Constitution cited, there's STILL NO AUTHORITY granted to Congress to waste money on "welfare".
> 
> Nobody ever told you that federal law is subordinate to the Constitution, bobby?
> 
> 
> Your next job is to cite the Amendment to the Constitution that permits Congress to federalize public schools.
> 
> ...


That's not what Washington thought.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> We will never be ready for it, it would mean the destruction of the republic.


It would mean the end of countries.

----------


## Oskar

> That's not what Washington thought.


How do you know?

----------


## Oskar

> It would mean the end of countries.


Of course. That is summed up in the term "one world government".

----------


## Libhater

> No confusion.
> 
> Welfare is slavery.
> 
> Aunty Fa is slavery.
> 
> Fascism is socialism and socialism is slavery.
> 
> I gotta ask...do you make as much as a penny a word for the total bullshit you post, @Roberlafollet?   You wouldn't want to post your DNC/George Soros rate-sheet, would you?   How about your Fascists' Writer's Guide?
> ...


Aunty Fa .........LMFAO

----------

Sled Dog (10-25-2017)

----------


## Libhater

> As for me, I am anti-slavery now and would have been then.
> 
> Blacks sold their own people into slavery but the whites who bought them should have known that mixing the races would bring trouble.
> 
> Then you have the middle men. People don't want to be reminded that many slave traders were Jews.


Miscegenation did bring about many of our social problems today. People don't realize that there were many black slave masters here in America as well, and their slaves were of course all black.

----------


## teeceetx

Progressives use social programs to keep Blacks and other minorities under control.  They create an instant voting bloc all the while ensuring they keep them dependent on Uncle Sam!  Too bad Blacks don't realize they have a new slave master!

----------

Libhater (10-25-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> That's not what Washington thought.


What did Washington think regarding using taxpayer money for welfare?

----------

Oskar (10-24-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> What did Washington think regarding using taxpayer money for welfare?


Well as the quote points out he signed the bill so he must have approved of it.

----------


## Oskar

> Well as the quote points out he signed the bill so he must have approved of it.


Was that really welfare?

----------


## Oskar

> _Philadelphia Gazette_, 14 Jan. 1794 (also reported in _Gazette of the U.S._, 11 Jan. 1794, and _Dunlap and Claypoole’s Am. Daily Advertiser_, 14 Jan. 1794).
> 
> 
> 1. After further debate, Smith’s report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, which took it up on 28 Jan. Nicholas urged a private subscription among the members; Smith replied that “himself and others who had seen the scene of distress were surprised, the gentleman did not feel as they did.” Nicholas protested against this personal attack and asserted that his opposition to federal relief was based on constitutional considerations. JM “professed scruples of the same kind. He thought that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) would not have injured his cause, by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by not saying, that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye witness.” On 4 Feb. the House passed “An act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want of support.” The act authorized the president to distribute from the treasury to the refugees $15,000, which was to be provisionally charged against the American debt to France. The House agreed to a Senate amendment on 10 Feb., and Washington signed the act two days later (_Annals of Congress_, 3d Cong., 1st sess., 173, 422, 442; _Philadelphia Gazette_, 31 Jan. 1794; _U.S. Statutes at Large_, 6:13).
> 
> Santo Domingan Refugees, [10 January] 1794
> 
> It would seem that Washington, Hamilton and Congress in 1794 favored a powerful federal government and a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.  The Federalist party was dominant in the early Republic.


The Santo Domingan refugee bill was about helping an ally (France) that had been instrumental in securing American independence. For all we like to trash the French today, we would not be Americans without them. The expenditure had nothing to do with a "strong federal government" or the general welfare clause - it was about helping people in need whose government had aided us in our time of need. It was a _quid pro quo_.

James Madison wanted to help the refugees for this reason, but saw the dangers - which have come to fruition under Democrat power in the 20th and 21st century.




> Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say, to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be carried.


https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../01-15-02-0117

----------

Rutabaga (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

James Madison would be opposed, I think, to U.S. welfare payments to Israel.

----------


## Morning Star

Liberal logic 101 ---> Black people are equal, but taking away welfare and affirmative action is racist because they depend on special privileges to be equal.

----------

Rutabaga (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Liberal logic 101 ---> Black people are equal, but taking away welfare and affirmative action is racist because they depend on special privileges to be equal.


Black people are equal, but it is too much of a burden for them to get ID cards in order to vote. 

Of course Democrat opposition to Voter ID has nothing to do with blacks and everything with their desire to let illegal aliens and dead people to vote so that they never lose another national election.

----------

Rutabaga (10-24-2017),teeceetx (10-25-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> Black people are equal, but it is too much of a burden for them to get ID cards in order to vote. 
> Of course Democrat opposition to Voter ID has nothing to do with blacks and everything with their desire to let illegal aliens and dead people to vote so that they never lose another national election.

----------

Rutabaga (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

1:03 - "they don't have the knowledge of how it works".

And conservatives are called racist?

----------

Morning Star (10-24-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> 1:03 - "they don't have the knowledge of how it works".
> And conservatives are called racist?


Leftist are so smug they don't even realize that this is why Trump go so many black votes.

----------


## Oskar

> Leftist are so smug they don't even realize that this is why Trump go so many black votes.


Liberals pretend that blacks didn't vote for Trump.

They don't want fugitive slaves to leave their plantation.

----------

Morning Star (10-24-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> Liberals pretend that blacks didn't vote for Trump.
> They don't want fugitive slaves to leave their plantation.


Those are the Uncle Toms.

----------

Oskar (10-24-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Well as the quote points out he signed the bill so he must have approved of it.


The money was deducted from what the U.S. owed France. In essence, France paid for it.

----------

Oskar (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> The money was deducted from what the U.S. owed France. In essence, France paid for it.


Mexico will pay for the wall.

----------

Rutabaga (10-24-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> I am aware that back in the 60's and before the mistake was made of breaking up families.  Fortunately we have no stopped that.


Section 8, welfare, and food stamps destroyed the black family. 

That and black mother's inability to not spread their legs and black father's inability to stay out of prison.

----------



----------


## Rutabaga

> I like these better:
> Lincoln was a Republican - Fact or Myth?
> Why Did Democrats Lose the White South?  Mother Jones
> And I still think we should not let a state get back more federal money than it has paid in.
> You could fund all that welfare you guys are crying about by doing that with just 3 or 4 southern states.
> Seems fair to me. Just because the red states are the taker states.......


in a nutshell,,{from your link]..

If I could say it in simpler terms I would, trust me. So I mean, if you are an anti-KKK, anti-fascist, Republican who votes for liberty then I get why you dont want to hear this. But like, do us all a favor and stop voting for Muslim bans and the wall. Join team Lincoln for real and fight against the bigotry. Send money to black lives matter. Vote for Bernie. Etc. Or, I get that is asking too much.

uh huh,,,you bet!

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Mexico will pay for the wall.


You still believe that pipe dream?

----------


## Rutabaga

> You still believe that pipe dream?


you still believe yours?

----------


## Oskar

> You still believe that pipe dream?


It's already being paid for by Mexico through cost savings due to deportations and Jose's staying on the south side of the border.

----------

GreenEyedLady (10-26-2017),Morning Star (10-25-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Abolitionists were a very small minority, even in the North.
> 
> Cotton (and other crops) were transported from the South to the North to be shipped to Europe. The American economy was integrated and the dollars going to Wall Street were a prime motivator for anti-slavery types who were fine with keeping the peculiar institution in the South but opposed to expanding it to the territories because it would upset the balance of power in Congress.
> 
> 
>  Anti-slavery is not the same as abolitionism.
> 
> The economic reasons for the War Between the States are well documented. I could write a whole book covering the issue, so I will leave you to do your own research.
> 
> ...


It's amazing how you can poison history by simple distortions.

Good job.

Obama wants to hire you.



Next you'll be saying something truly retarded, like saying Lincoln started the Civil War or that 9-11 was a planned event by cornspirators in the US government, or that there were no children shot at Sandy Hook.

----------


## Sled Dog

> As for me, I am anti-slavery now and would have been then.
> 
> Blacks sold their own people into slavery but the whites who bought them should have known that mixing the races would bring trouble.
> 
> Then you have the middle men. People don't want to be reminded that many slave traders were Jews.



Just when we thought you couldn't be more irrelevant....

----------


## Sled Dog

> Read this and you will be up to speed:
> 
> Kashyyyk - Wikipedia



The morons contributing with Idiotpedia are wrong:




> *Kashyyyk* (/kəˈʃiːk/ _ka-SHEEK_, /ˈkæʃɪk/ _KASH-ik_ or /ˌkæˈʃiː.aɪk/ _ka-SHEE-ike_), also known as *Wookiee Planet C*, is a fictional planet in the _Star Wars_ universe. It is the tropical, forested home world of the Wookiees. According to interviews given by _Star Wars_ creator George Lucas, the home of the Wookiees was originally intended to be the forest moon of Endor which plays a key role in the plot of the sixth film of the series, _Return of the Jedi_.[1]


Return of the Jedi is Episode 3.

I was counting them as they came out, and I didn't even have to take off my socks.

Those trashy prequels (thank God I didn't waste money on them) are numbered -2, -1 and 0.  That's about how they ranked, too.

----------


## Sled Dog

> That's not what Washington thought.


So you're too ignorant to read the C onstitution for yourself and come up with your own conclusions.

It's what JEFFERSON thought, and, more than that, it's what SLED DOG can show to exist in the Constitution.

Whaddya got on your side?

Socialist tracts of lies, and you can't even establish a trail back to the Constitution.

No wonder socialism fails EVERYWHERE it's tried.

Look at who supports it.

----------


## Taxcutter

Welfare, for lower-income women, make husbands obsolete.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It's already being paid for by Mexico through cost savings due to deportations and Jose's staying on the south side of the border.


Why shouldn't he stay in Mexico, we sent the jobs there?  Have you ever walked in the Southwest desert?

----------


## Morning Star

> Why shouldn't he stay in Mexico, we sent the jobs there?  Have you ever walked in the Southwest desert?


I agree, they should all stay in Mexico. Especially if all the jobs are there. Sorry Jose, no vacancy, no jobs.

DACA kids: 

deport.jpg

----------


## Oskar

> It's amazing how you can poison history by simple distortions.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> Obama wants to hire you.
> 
> 
> 
> Next you'll be saying something truly retarded, like saying Lincoln started the Civil War or that 9-11 was a planned event by cornspirators in the US government, or that there were no children shot at Sandy Hook.


I told the truth. If you can refute the history I presented, go ahead. I don't put much stock in your chances. Expansion of slavery to the territories is the consensus reason for the Confederate states seceding. if you learned something different, you ought to check the reliability of their sources or look for an agenda (probably left wing).

----------


## Oskar

> Why shouldn't he stay in Mexico, we sent the jobs there?


Then why don't the illegals stay on that side of the fence? They only are now because Trump made it clear that they would be deported.

----------


## Oskar

> Have you ever walked in the Southwest desert?


Yes.

----------


## Oskar

> Just when we thought you couldn't be more irrelevant....


You prefer fake history, eh? 

A pity.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Then why don't the illegals stay on that side of the fence? They only are now because Trump made it clear that they would be deported.


Mexican's are pretty much staying in Mexico.  Right now the issue is Central Americans and Chinese.  Both probably find coming by boat easiest.  Most of the Mexicans here have been here for decades.  

The middle class Chinese are the ones who want the anchor babies.  It gives them a way to get their families out of China should things fall apart there.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Yes.


Me too.  Can't see many people taking a few days to walk across that.  

Have a friend who had a girl friend from Cuba she came in via Mexico.  Flew there and then to a border town.  Went to the check point jumped across the line and shouted asylum and was handed a green card.  Stayed a few months and went back to Cuba.  

The way I see it the worthless wall is going to cost taxpayers a bunch of money, hurt the environment and do nothing to stop undocumented immigration.  

You guys get on me because I say let the people already here stay as citizens and get the employers who hire the  new people and the problem will be solved.  I think it was Americans who invited those people.  It was business that fought enforcing the law.  We 0we it to the people who came because those jobs were offered them.  Can not see them as criminals.  On the other hand the people who made the offer are a different story.

----------


## Oskar

> Can not see them as criminals.  On the other hand the people who made the offer are a different story.


Those would be Democrats who wanted to buy votes.

----------


## Oskar

> The purpose of welfare is to take care of people.


It is the responsibility of people to take care of themselves.

You're a Mormon, right? Got a Bible?

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."

 - 2 Thessalonans 3:10-12

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

- 1 Timothy 5:8

The early church did provide for widows and fed the hungry, but they did it for the truly needy and it they did not petition Rome to do it for them.

Government based socialism is unbiblical.

There has to be a limit to welfare, otherwise you are doing nothing more than make the productive people work to support the unproductive people who refuse to work.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I agree, they should all stay in Mexico. Especially if all the jobs are there. Sorry Jose, no vacancy, no jobs.
> 
> DACA kids: 
> 
> Attachment 25275


Remember there are a lot of DACA in the US army fighting for this country.

----------


## Oskar

> Remember there are a lot of DACA in the US army fighting for this country.


They shouldn't be. No one except a U.S. citizen should be in our military. 

The reason should be obvious.

----------


## Oskar

Rome hired foreign mercs to join their legions.

Assyria did the same.

Where are Rome and Assyria today?

----------


## Rita Marley

> Remember there are a lot of DACA in the US army fighting for this country.


I believe the Trump administration is doing away with that program, as being an in to terrorists.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> and ssi claims from people who "have ptsd from being forced to listen to what they call hate speech" or because they claim to be too overweight to work,,,whats your solution to remove cheats from the welfare rolls?




Clinton-esque welfare reform.  :Embarrassment:

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Those would be Democrats who wanted to buy votes.


Most lower income people are Democrats.  It is in their best interests.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I believe the Trump administration is doing away with that program, as being an in to terrorists.


Hopefully you are wrong.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Rome hired foreign mercs to join their legions.
> 
> Assyria did the same.
> 
> Where are Rome and Assyria today?


I'll consider that question in another 1,200 years.  We've only been hiring foreign mercenaries for about 250 years.  The Romans did it for over !,453 years.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> They shouldn't be. No one except a U.S. citizen should be in our military. 
> 
> The reason should be obvious.


We'd have shortage of front line soldiers.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It is the responsibility of people to take care of themselves.
> 
> You're a Mormon, right? Got a Bible?
> 
> "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."
> 
>  - 2 Thessalonans 3:10-12
> 
> "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
> ...


The passages you have quoted are considered to be about a paid clergy.  Nothing in the Bible talks about the Roman welfare system, which was often refereed to as bread and circus. In fact an issue in the war between Egypt and Rome was the Roman welfare program which needed Egyptian grain.  

I would say the closest thing Jesus said about the Roman welfare program was "render onto Caesar".  I haven't seen to much written about Roman welfare programs in the provinces but it was very important in the capital.  Since the Romans put stadiums all over the empire and the Coliseum was a major distribution center as well game venue it likely existed.  Like most elites the Roman aristocracy understood that you got killed if you need keep the plebs happy.  Some of them found out the hard way on several occasions.

----------


## Morning Star

> We'd have shortage of front line soldiers.


Put all the welfare recipients and illegals out there.

----------


## Morning Star

> Remember there are a lot of DACA in the US army fighting for this country.


There is a program for that which helps them get citizenship, so I'm good with them being there. The rest of them, been here for many, many years didn't bother to get citizenship adios!

----------


## Sled Dog

> We'd have shortage of front line soldiers.



No.

We'd have to pick our battles more carefully.

I mean, how many troops have we lost because Obama created ISIS?

How many troops have we lost because Obama wanted them to die in Trashcanistan and wouldn't let them fight back?

How many troops died because the Democrats forced the US into Vietnam at full strength?

How many troops died because you Rodents WOULDN'T bomb Tehran when we should have...which is any time since they kidnapped the hostages to today?

----------

Jim Scott (10-25-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Mexican's are pretty much staying in Mexico.  Right now the issue is Central Americans and Chinese.  Both probably find coming by boat easiest.  Most of the Mexicans here have been here for decades.  
> 
> The middle class Chinese are the ones who want the anchor babies.  It gives them a way to get their families out of China should things fall apart there.



If they speak "English" and nobody can understand them, they're "Mexican".

Life isn't complicated when the distinctions don't fucking matter.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Me too.  Can't see many people taking a few days to walk across that.  
> 
> Have a friend who had a girl friend from Cuba she came in via Mexico.  Flew there and then to a border town.  Went to the check point jumped across the line and shouted asylum and was handed a green card.  Stayed a few months and went back to Cuba.  
> 
> The way I see it the worthless wall is going to cost taxpayers a bunch of money, hurt the environment and do nothing to stop undocumented immigration.  
> 
> You guys get on me because I say let the people already here stay as citizens and get the employers who hire the  new people and the problem will be solved.  I think it was Americans who invited those people.  It was business that fought enforcing the law.  We 0we it to the people who came because those jobs were offered them.  Can not see them as criminals.  On the other hand the people who made the offer are a different story.


If the Wall was going to be worthless, the fucking traitor Rodents would have built it ages ago, with goonion labor, cost-plus contracts, triple time, the works.


It would be 90 feet tall, 80 feet thick, and have 95 layers of paint...plus "art".

What a fraud you are, Bobby.

----------

Jim Scott (10-25-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Remember there are a lot of DACA in the US army fighting for this country.


Remember, there are a lot of young citizens who are being denied enlistment because the ranks are full.

Oh, shit.

Didn't think we'd notice, eh?

----------

Jim Scott (10-25-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> We'd have shortage of front line soldiers.


B.S. There has never been a shortage of American men and women who want to serve.

Besides, Democrats hate the military.

 Now all of a sudden they care about troop strength because they can fill the ranks up with illegal aliens in return for their votes.

----------

Jim Scott (10-25-2017),Kodiak (10-25-2017),Rutabaga (10-25-2017),Sled Dog (10-25-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> B.S. There has never been a shortage of American men and women who want to serve.
> 
> Besides, Democrats hate the military.
> 
>  Now all of a sudden they care about troop strength because they can fill the ranks up with illegal aliens in return for their votes.


What's sudden about it the program has been there for decades.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> No.
> 
> We'd have to pick our battles more carefully.
> 
> I mean, how many troops have we lost because Obama created ISIS?
> 
> How many troops have we lost because Obama wanted them to die in Trashcanistan and wouldn't let them fight back?
> 
> How many troops died because the Democrats forced the US into Vietnam at full strength?
> ...


Zero.

----------


## Dan40

> What's sudden about it the program has been there for decades.


There is not, never has been a program to bring ILLEGAL ALIENS into the US Military.  Non-citizens may join the military, ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS may not.  A class A felony if they produce false papers in order to join.

----------

Oskar (10-25-2017),Rutabaga (10-25-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Zero.


This is what math challenged looks like.

----------

Rutabaga (10-25-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Zero.


Really? I will let_ you_ call the Gold Star mothers and let them their sons and daughters are still alive.

----------


## Oskar

> What's sudden about it the program has been there for decades.


Not for illegal aliens.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Not for illegal aliens.


progs don't know the difference...the globe is just one big happy enchilada to them...

----------

Oskar (10-25-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> progs don't know the difference...the globe is just one big happy* enchilada* to them...


Dang, now I am hungry.

I need to go down to the carniceria and pick up some chicken asada and fresh tortillas.

I already have the cheese and can make a tomato sauce.

----------

Rutabaga (10-25-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Me too.  Can't see many people taking a few days to walk across that.  
> 
> Have a friend who had a girl friend from Cuba she came in via Mexico.  Flew there and then to a border town.  Went to the check point jumped across the line and shouted asylum and was handed a green card.  Stayed a few months and went back to Cuba.  
> 
> The way I see it the worthless wall is going to cost taxpayers a bunch of money, hurt the environment and do nothing to stop undocumented immigration.  
> 
> You guys get on me because I say let the people already here stay as citizens and get the employers who hire the  new people and the problem will be solved.  I think it was Americans who invited those people.  It was business that fought enforcing the law.  We 0we it to the people who came because those jobs were offered them.  Can not see them as criminals.  On the other hand the people who made the offer are a different story.


i guess the hundreds of miles of california's wall isn't a problem?

the environment, stopping illegals, etc...

why don't you massive california hypocrites tear down YOUR wall, bob?

why is it good for you but not good for everyone else?

----------

Oskar (10-25-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Me too.  Can't see many people taking a few days to walk across that.  
> 
> Have a friend who had a girl friend from Cuba she came in via Mexico.  Flew there and then to a border town.  Went to the check point jumped across the line and shouted asylum and was handed a green card.  Stayed a few months and went back to Cuba.  
> 
> The way I see it the worthless wall is going to cost taxpayers a bunch of money, hurt the environment and do nothing to stop undocumented immigration.  
> 
> You guys get on me because I say let the people already here stay as citizens and get the employers who hire the  new people and the problem will be solved.  I think it was Americans who invited those people.  *It was business that fought enforcing the law.  We 0we it to the people who came because those jobs were offered them.  Can not see them as criminals.  On the other hand the people who made the offer are a different story.*


*
*
you do know obobo sued AZ and sheriff joe for arresting employers who employed illegals?

and when joe didn't stop, they charged him with contempt...you never heard about that bob?
it was national news for months...don pardoned him...remember?

history, bob...not too long ago history...you should pay more attention to it...

----------

Oskar (10-25-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> We'd have shortage of front line soldiers.


bullshit,,pure and stinky bullshit...

----------

Oskar (10-25-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Me too.  Can't see many people taking a few days to walk across that.


If they came here legally they wouldn't have to walk through the desert.

While we are on the topic, do you think that illegal aliens should receive welfare?

----------


## Rutabaga

> If they came here legally they wouldn't have to walk through the desert.
> 
> While we are on the topic, do you think that illegal aliens should receive welfare?


so chinese are walking through the desert?

bob seems to think chinese are over running our borders...

must be one of those anonymous sources the left is always yammering about...

----------


## Oskar

> so chinese are walking through the desert?
> 
> bob seems to think chinese are over running our borders...
> 
> must be one of those anonymous sources the left is always yammering about...


He is talking about Chinese women who fly here pregnant to deliver babies. 

It is a big deal here in southern California called "birth tourism".

Bob is just trying to deflect to the Chinese so that we lay off his Mexican friends.

He doesn't get that ALL illegal immigration is wrong.

There are substantial Irish illegal alien communities in NYC, Boston, San Francisco, and here in L.A.

Do I have a problem with them even though they are white? Darn right I do!

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Oskar

On the other hand it should be pointed out that white immigrants have a hard time attaining legal citizenship in the United States of America.

Non-whites have been given preference ever since 1965.

----------


## Rutabaga

> He is talking about Chinese women who fly here pregnant to deliver babies. 
> 
> It is a big deal here in southern California called "birth tourism".
> 
> Bob is just trying to deflect to the Chinese so that we lay off his Mexican friends.
> 
> He doesn't get that ALL illegal immigration is wrong.
> 
> There are substantial Irish illegal alien communities in NYC, Boston, San Francisco, and here in L.A.
> ...


but its california,,they welcome ALL illegals, give them free education, healthcare, housing, transportation, food, clothing, money, and register them to vote...

the wall should go around california...they already have their souther part walled,,now its just north then west to the pacific...

----------

Oskar (10-26-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> but its california,,they welcome ALL illegals, give them free education, healthcare, housing, transportation, food, clothing, money, and register them to vote...
> 
> the wall should go around california...they already have their souther part walled,,now its just north then west to the pacific...


Ask Las Vegas and Reno what they would think about an eastern wall.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> If they came here legally they wouldn't have to walk through the desert.
> 
> While we are on the topic, do you think that illegal aliens should receive welfare?


No, health care and education yes.  Of course there are a lot of mixed families.  One spouse documented and the other undocumented.  Many have documented adult children.  Many have at least thought they were paying taxes for a decade or more.  

I don't think many walk through the deep desert.  It's to easy to go through check points as a refuge or as someone coming in at a check point to go shopping.  You think the stores in El Paso don't want to sell to Mexicans.  

Remember too it appears about 1/2 the new arrivals are visa over stays who come in by plan for the most part.  Don't know how many come in from Canada.  At best that wall would be a one foot plug for a ten foot hole.  

It doesn't solve the real problem which is the lack of good paying jobs.  Would probably speed up automation and moving jobs overseas.  After all if you can't bring your new workers in and have the old ones sent to Mexico city why not put the chicken processing plant in Mexico and pay Mexican wages.  You even get to avoid providing health insurance.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Ask Las Vegas and Reno what they would think about an eastern wall.


Las Vegas would have it torn down before it could be put up.  Don't know about Reno but would expect they'd want it down before it went up to   Las Vegas depends on people from out of town doubling the population every weekend.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> so chinese are walking through the desert?
> 
> bob seems to think chinese are over running our borders...
> 
> must be one of those anonymous sources the left is always yammering about...


Nope I think they use air planes.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> He is talking about Chinese women who fly here pregnant to deliver babies. 
> 
> It is a big deal here in southern California called "birth tourism".
> 
> Bob is just trying to deflect to the Chinese so that we lay off his Mexican friends.
> 
> He doesn't get that ALL illegal immigration is wrong.
> 
> There are substantial Irish illegal alien communities in NYC, Boston, San Francisco, and here in L.A.
> ...


I'm not trying to deflect anything.  We do need to get control of immigration from everywhere.  We may disagree on the exact methods but not that the problem needs to be solved. 

I do feel that undocumented immigration from Mexico is in sharp decline and has been since NAFTA took affect.  

The worthless wall will do little or nothing because there are to many other ways to come in then walking across that border.  As I said elsewhere it is a 1 foot plug in as ten foot hole.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Nope I think they use air planes.


both of them?

----------


## Rutabaga

> I'm not trying to deflect anything.  We do need to get control of immigration from everywhere.  We may disagree on the exact methods but not that the problem needs to be solved. 
> 
> I do feel that undocumented immigration from Mexico is in sharp decline and has been since NAFTA took affect.  
> 
> The worthless wall will do little or nothing because there are to many other ways to come in then walking across that border.  As I said elsewhere it is a 1 foot plug in as ten foot hole.


why does california have a wall all along its border with mexico extending into AZ?
to keep californians from escaping into mexico?

----------


## Rutabaga

The *Migration Policy Institute* estimated the number of illegal immigrants living in California to be much higher than the Pew Research Center's estimate. The Migration Policy Institute estimated a little more than 3 million undocumented residents living in the state. Of those, 70 percent are from Mexico. About 412,000 come from Asian countries. Another 480,000 come from Central America and China.

*Illegal immigration in California brings in high numbers of marginally educated immigrants.* About 11 percent of the adults who are undocumented immigrants in California are believed to have a college level education, according to the Migration Policy Institute. About 32 percent have a high school diploma or some college. That leaves 57 percent with education below the level of a high school diploma or GED.


*Illegal Immigration Statistics in California - Newsmax.com*www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/illegal-immigration-California/2015/09/14/.../69146...




Sep 14, 2015 - *California* has the largest number of *illegal immigrants* in the United ... the increase in other areas of the country is happening at a *much* ... Another 480,000 come from Central America and*China*. ... Readers are advised to consult a health professional about any issue regarding *their* health and well-being.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> The purpose of welfare is that I got 7 kids wit just as many "Baby" MaMas...
> 
> Im a freaking FAILURE yet you the TAXPAYERS are gonna feed my Kids and 6 or 7 Baby Mamas..
> 
> We gonna drive our CADILLAC to the SOUP KITCHEN too


I my @Karl, you've really aged.

----------


## RGV

> both of them?


Asians Now Outpace Mexicans In Terms of Undocumented Growth - The Atlantic

----------


## pinqy

> [/B]
> you do know obobo sued AZ and sheriff joe for arresting employers who employed illegals?


By 2012, Arpaio had conducted 58 "employer sanction operations" and arrested 2 employers.  And over 600 employees. Phoenix New Times March 2012

Here's the thing...Unauthorized presence in the U.S. is not a crime.  You're subject to deportation, but it's not a criminal offense.  Illegal entry, forged papers, working, are all crimes. Sheriff Joe was stopping brown people simply to check their immigration status. He had no legal right to do so because he was not enforcing any law.

The County did have partnership with DHS to enforce immigration laws, but because of racial profiling, DHS cancelled it.

----------


## Rutabaga

> By 2012, Arpaio had conducted 58 "employer sanction operations" and arrested 2 employers.  And over 600 employees. Phoenix New Times March 2012
> 
> Here's the thing...Unauthorized presence in the U.S. is not a crime.  You're subject to deportation, but it's not a criminal offense.  Illegal entry, forged papers, working, are all crimes.* Sheriff Joe was stopping brown people simply to check their immigration status. He had no legal right to do so because he was not enforcing any law.
> *
> The County did have partnership with DHS to enforce immigration laws, but because of racial profiling, DHS cancelled it.


nonsense,,,he was targeting places that hire illegals...both the workers and employers were arrested if it was found to be the case...as you just said..

there is zero evidence his deputies were just going around stopping random brown folks...thats just nonsense and hyperbole form laraza and illegals..
newtimes is staunch alt-left rag...every story is twisted to suit their lefty agenda...they receive monetary support from laraza...

----------


## RGV

> nonsense,,,he was targeting places that hire illegals...both the workers and employers were arrested if it was found to be the case...as you just said..
> 
> there is zero evidence his deputies were just going around stopping random brown folks...thats just nonsense and hyperbole form laraza and illegals..
> newtimes is staunch alt-left rag...every story is twisted to suit their lefty agenda...they receive monetary support from laraza...


Naw, He was targeting. It was a joke that if you were brown your papers were right behind your drivers license.

----------


## sargentodiaz

Government handouts were started by DembocRAT politicians to ensure they got the votes of the recipients. LBJ just put the nail in the coffin with his War on Poverty. Enslaved whole generations of voters in heir favor.

----------


## pinqy

> nonsense,,,he was targeting places that hire illegals...both the workers and employers were arrested if it was found to be the case...as you just said..


 That's not all he was doing and not the main reason he ran into trouble.  His department was making traffic stops based on racial profiling. And "both the workers and employers?"  2 employers in 58 raids.   He wasn't going after the employers.



> there is zero evidence his deputies were just going around stopping random brown folks...thats just nonsense and hyperbole form laraza and illegals..


Multiple courts disagree with you. The District Court ruled forbidding Maricopa County Sheriffs office from " (1) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization; (2) using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in deciding whether to stop any vehicle with a Latino occupant, or in deciding whether a vehicle occupant was in the United States without authorization; (3) detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law; (4) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle . . . for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present; and (5) detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Naw, He was targeting. It was a joke that if you were brown your papers were right behind your drivers license.


can you provide the anonymous source that gives your opinion veracity?

----------


## Rutabaga

> That's not all he was doing and not the main reason he ran into trouble.  His department was making traffic stops based on racial profiling. And "both the workers and employers?"  2 employers in 58 raids.   He wasn't going after the employers.
> 
> Multiple courts disagree with you. The District Court ruled forbidding Maricopa County Sheriffs office from " (1) “detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization”; (2) “using race or Latino ancestry” as a factor in deciding whether to stop any vehicle with a Latino occupant, or in deciding whether a vehicle occupant was in the United States without authorization; (3) “detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law”; (4) “detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle . . . for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present”; and (5) “detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.”


he wasnt found guilty of racial profiling...

there goes your whole argument...

----------

Oskar (10-26-2017),Tennyson (10-26-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> I'm not trying to deflect anything.  We do need to get control of immigration from everywhere.  We may disagree on the exact methods but not that the problem needs to be solved.


You agree that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem and needs to be solved. 

Is it logical to "solve" a problem by having a policy of:  "If you get here, you can stay here?"

That is liberal insanity.  And it is recent liberal insanity only because ILLEGALS are a huge source of Democrat voter fraud.

Bill Clinton as president made many speeches about the problem of ILLEGALS.  Your own liberal president said ILLEGAL immigration MUST be stopped and the ILLEGALS here must be deported.  Then the lying liberal left found THEY could profit from the ILLEGALS to the detriment of the USA.

----------

Libhater (10-26-2017),Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## pinqy

> You agree that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem and needs to be solved. 
> 
> Is it logical to "solve" a problem by having a policy of:  "If you get here, you can stay here?".


Well, that was the policy on Cubans since the 1960's.  Restricted by Clinton and ended by Obama.

----------


## Dan40

> Well, that was the policy on Cubans since the 1960's.  Restricted by Clinton and ended by Obama.


Sorry, WRONG!  If Cubans, ESCAPING from a dictatorship, could reach USA dry soil---FROM CUBA ONLY---they could stay here.  If they were stopped in the water (and I observed it happening) they were sent back.  If they got here from Haiti or the Bahamas or anywhere but Cuba, they were sent back.  Cubans arriving from some other nation had already escaped from Castro so they were no longer escaping, same as ANYONE sneaking across our borders.  Clinton and Obama made it easier, not harder for Cubans to stay here.

----------

Oskar (10-26-2017),Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> Well, that was the policy on Cubans since the 1960's.  Restricted by Clinton and ended by Obama.


That is sanctuary city policy in a nut shell.

----------


## pinqy

> Sorry, WRONG!  If Cubans, ESCAPING from a dictatorship, could reach USA dry soil---FROM CUBA ONLY---they could stay here.  If they were stopped in the water (and I observed it happening) they were sent back.


That was only after 1994.  Before that, Cubans intercepted in the water were allowed in.





> If they got here from Haiti or the Bahamas or anywhere but Cuba, they were sent back.  Cubans arriving from some other nation had already escaped from Castro so they were no longer escaping, same as ANYONE sneaking across our borders.  Clinton and Obama made it easier, not harder for Cubans to stay here.


Nope.  Many Cubans crossed into Texas from Mexico. http://www.houstonpress.com/news/imm...border-6575312

----------


## RGV

> Government handouts were started by DembocRAT politicians to ensure they got the votes of the recipients. LBJ just put the nail in the coffin with his War on Poverty. Enslaved whole generations of voters in heir favor.


Those are all red states now. Let's flip it back to the blue states.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

----------


## RobertLafollet

> can you provide the anonymous source that gives your opinion veracity?


He already gave you the Phoenix New Times March 2012 A local paper.  That shoulf be an accurate source.  The sources you consider accurate and the sources I consider accurate tend to differ.  That makes it rather difficult to come to agreement.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Sorry, WRONG!  If Cubans, ESCAPING from a dictatorship, could reach USA dry soil---FROM CUBA ONLY---they could stay here.  If they were stopped in the water (and I observed it happening) they were sent back.  If they got here from Haiti or the Bahamas or anywhere but Cuba, they were sent back.  Cubans arriving from some other nation had already escaped from Castro so they were no longer escaping, same as ANYONE sneaking across our borders.  Clinton and Obama made it easier, not harder for Cubans to stay here.


Wrong and I saw and talked to the person who came in via San Diego.

----------


## Dan40

> That was only after 1994.  Before that, Cubans intercepted in the water were allowed in.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Many Cubans crossed into Texas from Mexico. http://www.houstonpress.com/news/imm...border-6575312


Wet feet, dry feet was instituted in 1996 and lasted until 2014.  Clinton made a policy that if Cubans could reach US territorial waters they could stay.  But then made an agreement with the Dictator Castro that escaping Cubans had to reach US dry land or be sent back.

Cubans coming in from Mexico are ILLEGALS, same as everyone else sneaking across our borders.

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> both of them?


Don't know about the Irish the Chinese use air planes or they come in on cargo ships.  A lot of the ones who come in on cargo ships end up in sweat shops making clothing.  

There isn't just one source of undocumented or one method of arrival.  You talk about various estimates.  I've seen some totally off the wall estimates like 30 million or more.  Sometimes that is because of off the wall definitions or times it is because of projecting pre-NAFTA trends.  I'll stick with the 11 million standard estimate.

California does have a large percentage so probably does New Mexico.  Wouldn't be surprised if Utah is another destination.  In all 3 cases there are family reasons for that.  A lot of cousins live on both sides of the border.  Indian tribal lands crossed the border.  Tribe members still live on both sides and consider themselves part of the same tribal nation.    For hundreds of years the Southwest border was more a fiction then a reality as far as immigration went.  

Mexicans do make up the largest percentage of the undocumented.  But and it's a big one they are not the largest percentage of new arrivals.  The worthless wall will have no affect on people already here.  We as I'm sure you know differ on what should be done with the people already here.  

Santa Fe was founded well before Jamestown.  It was a thriving city when Jamestown was founded.  It is about the same age as San Augustine.  California was a thriving Mexican colony in 1848.  There were more roads and trade routes going north and south into Mexico then east and west into the US in 1848.  The dominant language of the Southwest was Spanish.  None of that changed over night.  The exact border was still being negotiated in the 1960's, partially because the Rio Grande occasionally changes it's course. 

One of the problems with US history is it is eastern oriented.  It ignores the Southwest and it ignores the Indian cultures.  Both were important to the growth of the US.  Both are still with us.  Keep in mind that most Mexicans and Central Americans are part Indian.

----------


## Rutabaga

> He already gave you the Phoenix New Times March 2012 A local paper.  That shoulf be an accurate source.  The sources you consider accurate and the sources I consider accurate tend to differ.  That makes it rather difficult to come to agreement.


its common knowledge the newtimes is an alt-left rag..everybody knows that...

i have no intention on having a discussion with you bob,,i realize its pointless to try to engage you in factual based exchanges, as you just post opinions unrelated to the subject matter...you exist as a form of chew toy for me,,,nothing more..you entertain me,,like a clown at the circus..

dont take it personally bob,,be thankful you serve a purpose..

----------

Oskar (10-26-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Don't know about the Irish the Chinese use air planes or they come in on cargo ships.  A lot of the ones who come in on cargo ships end up in sweat shops making clothing.  
> 
> There isn't just one source of undocumented or one method of arrival.  You talk about various estimates.  I've seen some totally off the wall estimates like 30 million or more.  Sometimes that is because of off the wall definitions or times it is because of projecting pre-NAFTA trends.  I'll stick with the 11 million standard estimate.
> 
> California does have a large percentage so probably does New Mexico.  Wouldn't be surprised if Utah is another destination.  In all 3 cases there are family reasons for that.  A lot of cousins live on both sides of the border.  Indian tribal lands crossed the border.  Tribe members still live on both sides and consider themselves part of the same tribal nation.    For hundreds of years the Southwest border was more a fiction then a reality as far as immigration went.  
> 
> Mexicans do make up the largest percentage of the undocumented.  But and it's a big one they are not the largest percentage of new arrivals.  The worthless wall will have no affect on people already here.  We as I'm sure you know differ on what should be done with the people already here.  
> 
> Santa Fe was founded well before Jamestown.  It was a thriving city when Jamestown was founded.  It is about the same age as San Augustine.  California was a thriving Mexican colony in 1848.  There were more roads and trade routes going north and south into Mexico then east and west into the US in 1848.  The dominant language of the Southwest was Spanish.  None of that changed over night.  The exact border was still being negotiated in the 1960's, partially because the Rio Grande occasionally changes it's course. 
> ...


bob,,,with all due respect,,,the above is nice fluffy page stuffer with no direct correlation to the subject matter...your opinions are only evidence of that, opinion...

----------


## Oskar

> Nope I think they use air planes.


Impossible - you said that planes can't fly. 

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...planes+can%27t

----------


## Oskar

> why does california have a wall all along its border with mexico extending into AZ?
> to keep californians from escaping into mexico?


Walking into Mexico is easy, the hard part is getting back into the states. 

We make it hard for U.S. citizens and easy for illegal aliens.

----------


## Oskar

> Nope I think they use air planes.


Some Chinese airline is going to begin flights into Ontario (that's in California for the great unwashed) from the People's Republic. 

Communist China to Commiefornia.

----------


## Oskar

> By 2012, Arpaio had conducted 58 "employer sanction operations" and arrested 2 employers.  And over 600 employees. Phoenix New Times March 2012
> 
> Here's the thing...Unauthorized presence in the U.S. is not a crime.  You're subject to deportation, but it's not a criminal offense.  Illegal entry, forged papers, working, are all crimes. Sheriff Joe was stopping brown people simply to check their immigration status. He had no legal right to do so because he was not enforcing any law.
> 
> The County did have partnership with DHS to enforce immigration laws, but because of racial profiling, DHS cancelled it.


If they are here unauthorized then they are here *illegally*.

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Multiple courts disagree with you. The District Court ruled forbidding Maricopa County Sheriffs office from " (1) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization; (2) using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in deciding whether to stop any vehicle with a Latino occupant, or in deciding whether a vehicle occupant was in the United States without authorization; (3) detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law; (4) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle . . . for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present; and (5) detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.


Those courts are full of left wing judges with a political agenda.

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Government handouts were started by DembocRAT politicians to ensure they got the votes of the recipients. LBJ just put the nail in the coffin with his War on Poverty. Enslaved whole generations of voters in heir favor.


I get it! Dem, dumb, and rat - DembocRAT!

----------


## Oskar

> Well, that was the policy on Cubans since the 1960's.  Restricted by Clinton and ended by Obama.


There was a reason for that. It was U.S. policy to oppose any communist regime, until Clinton came into office and began turning the U.S. into a communist country.

----------


## Oskar

> he already gave you the phoenix new times march 2012 a local paper.  That shoulf be an accurate source.


lmao!

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Don't know about the Irish the Chinese use air planes or they come in on cargo ships.  A lot of the ones who come in on cargo ships end up in sweat shops making clothing.


I think the Irish mainly come here aboard Air Lingus or some airline and overstay their visas. 

Some may go to Mexico first and then sneak across the border.

Mexico and Ireland have a somewhat _simpatico_ relationship since they are both Catholic countries.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I think the Irish mainly come here aboard Air Lingus or some airline and overstay their visas. 
> 
> Some may go to Mexico first and then sneak across the border.
> 
> Mexico and Ireland have a somewhat _simpatico_ relationship since they are both Catholic countries.


If they want to sneak in Canada would be closer and no language barrier.  Probably catch a direct flight from Dublin.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> bob,,,with all due respect,,,the above is nice fluffy page stuffer with no direct correlation to the subject matter...your opinions are only evidence of that, opinion...


The history of the Southwest is not opinion.  I do have credits in New Mexico and Southwest history.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Impossible - you said that planes can't fly. 
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...planes+can%27t


It takes careful planning.  Have to choose a rare cool day.

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> The history of the Southwest is not opinion.  I do have credits in New Mexico and Southwest history.


Credits?  (Six hours max. Lol.) Another taker looking for credit. 
You should debit the future with a "pay it forward" and be a Giver for a change. 

It's not what ya got. <or what you people take>
It's what ya give.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Credits?  (Six hours max. Lol.) Another taker looking for credit. 
> You should debit the future with a "pay it forward" and be a Giver for a change. 
> 
> It's not what ya got. <or what you people take>
> It's what ya give.


As part of 36 hours formal credits and a few hundred books.  Plus Magazines.

----------


## Tennyson

> Those are all red states now. Let's flip it back to the blue states.
> 
> Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic


The red state blue state givers and takers is based on liberal lies.

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The red state blue state givers and takers is based on *liberal lies.*




its all they have...

----------


## Rutabaga

> The history of the Southwest is not opinion.  I do have credits in New Mexico and Southwest history.


bob,,i wouldn't believe a word out of your mouth if they came out notarized...its not personal, just learned..

----------


## Rutabaga

> As part of 36 hours formal credits and a few hundred books.  Plus Magazines.


all in your trailer in your trailer park in a shitty area of laraza territory...

[dont blame me for a good memory bob,,your the one who shared those tidbits]

where did you go wrong bob?

----------


## Oskar

> all in your trailer in your trailer park in a shitty area of laraza territory...
> 
> [dont blame me for a good memory bob,,your the one who shared those tidbits]
> 
> where did you go wrong bob?


I know exactly where he lives due to those tidbits. I won't share but it is easily figured out by researching the info he has put out.

----------

Rutabaga (10-26-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> I know exactly where he lives due to those tidbits. I won't share but it is easily figured out by researching the info he has put out.


Thing is, I know his name but I can't find him as a graduate of the university he says he attended. 

I'm not saying that he didn't, just that I can't find it.

----------


## Oskar

> The history of the Southwest is not opinion.  I do have credits in New Mexico and Southwest history.


I know what you are talking about and your history concerning the intermixing of races and cultures in the Southwest is mostly accurate. 

Where you go wrong is in applying that history in favor of an open border.

If you aren't in favor of an open border, say so (and try not let that perception take root).

----------


## Oskar

> If they want to sneak in Canada would be closer and no language barrier.  Probably catch a direct flight from Dublin.


I'm sure that they teach Spanish in Ireland.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> all in your trailer in your trailer park in a shitty area of laraza territory...
> 
> [dont blame me for a good memory bob,,your the one who shared those tidbits]
> 
> where did you go wrong bob?


To many kids and to many divorces.

----------

Rutabaga (10-27-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I know what you are talking abo  Reply With Quoteut and your history concerning the intermixing of races and cultures in the Southwest is mostly accurate. 
> 
> Where you go wrong is in applying that history in favor of an open border.
> 
> If you aren't in favor of an open border, say so (and try not let that perception take root).


I am in favor of an immigration program that emphasizes family unification.
I am not in favor of open borders, except that we should make a deal with Mexico that members of Indian tribes that have cross border lands get dual citizenship.  
I favor a redo of the Reagan amnesty but properly enforced this time.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Thing is, I know his name but I can't find him as a graduate of the university he says he attended. 
> 
> I'm not saying that he didn't, just that I can't find it.


Ok I have gone to several colleges.

I started at the University of Wisconsin Sheboygan campus.
I transfered to the University of Wisconsin Madison.  
I transfered to the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and took a degree in 1976 under my real legal name of William Couture
I later took courses at College of the Canyons in what is now Santa Calarita, Northridge California, and the University of New Mexico Albuquerque.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I know exactly where he lives due to those tidbits. I won't share but it is easily figured out by researching the info he has put out.


I don't want to publish my personal address but I have no problem with people knowing I live in a mobile home park on Valley in Fontana.  

If you want to send me a letter send it to

SBTBILL
2550 E. Desert Inn Rd. #163
Las Vegas, NV 89121 

That is my business address.

----------


## pinqy

> Wet feet, dry feet was instituted in 1996 and lasted until 2014.  Clinton made a policy that if Cubans could reach US territorial waters they could stay.


No, reaching territorial waters was the policy before 1994. After that they had to reach dry land.




> Cubans coming in from Mexico are ILLEGALS, same as everyone else sneaking across our borders.


Now, yes, since Obama rescinded the wet foot dry foot policy. But as I demonstrated, Cubans coming to the U.S/Mexico border did not have to sneak, they just had to ask for parole. There was no rule saying they had to come direct from Cuba.

----------


## Oskar

> I don't want to publish my personal address but I have no problem with people knowing I live in a mobile home park on Valley in Fontana.  
> 
> If you want to send me a letter send it to
> 
> SBTBILL
> 2550 E. Desert Inn Rd. #163
> Las Vegas, NV 89121 
> 
> That is my business address.


Thing is that I was able to learn your home address from your business address.

I'm not stalking and have no plans to visit but I do find it curious that you are so loose with sharing personal details online, unless you are trying to promote your business.

Cool website by the way.

----------


## GreenEyedLady

> I am in favor of an immigration program that emphasizes family unification.
> I am not in favor of open borders, except that we should make a deal with Mexico that members of Indian tribes that have cross border lands get dual citizenship.  
> I favor a redo of the Reagan amnesty but properly enforced this time.


 Ok, unify their asses where they belong, South of the border.

----------

Oskar (10-27-2017)

----------


## GreenEyedLady

They shouldn't be here illegally and collecting off our social systems. Simple enough for anyone to understand.

----------



----------


## RobertLafollet

> Thing is that I was able to learn your home address from your business address.
> 
> I'm not stalking and have no plans to visit but I do find it curious that you are so loose with sharing personal details online, unless you are trying to promote your business.
> 
> Cool website by the way.


Some of you said you know where i live.  Figured I'd let you see if you were right.

My education was challenged.  I'm kind of proud of it. Since it was claimed it couldn't be found I told any one interested where to look.  

What you accuses me of self promotion.  What businessman would stop so low.

----------


## Dan40

> Some of you said you know where i live.  Figured I'd let you see if you were right.
> 
> My education was challenged.  I'm kind of proud of it. Since it was claimed it couldn't be found I told any one interested where to look.  
> 
> What you accuses me of self promotion.  What businessman would stop so low.


Everything you post is from your internet fantasies.  All pure concentrated bullshit.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Everything you post is from your internet fantasies.  All pure concentrated bullshit.


You're just mad because I caught you on your tax dodge BMW.

----------


## Rutabaga

> To many kids and to many divorces.


that's what i was thinking...

----------


## Dan40

> You're just mad because I caught you on your tax dodge BMW.


Another fantasy.  What you did was demonstrate your drooling, slobbering, disgusting, jealousy.  There was nothing to be "caught,"  IRS didn't think so, and there has never been any evidence that you have ever had an actual thought.

----------


## Morning Star

> _I am not in favor of open borders
> _
> _I favor a redo of the Reagan amnesty._


Pick one.

----------

